
    Anthony HEINEMANN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael MURPHY, in his official capacity as Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden; Bruce A. Salzburg, in his official capacity as Wyoming Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-8042.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Dec. 16, 2008.
    Diane E. Courselle, John D. King, University of Wyoming College of Law, Laramie, WY, for Petitioners-Appellants.
    Graham MacDonald Smith, Wyoming Attorney General, Cheyenne, WY, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner seeks to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition as an unauthorized “second or successive” habeas petition. Respondents have filed a letter conceding that the instant petition was not a second or successive petition because the prior habeas petition, while raising similar claims, originated from a different conviction. See Hardeman v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 272, 275-76 (5th Cir.2008) (holding that “ ‘to be considered “successive,” a prisoner’s second petition must, in a broad sense, represent a second attack by federal habeas petition on the same conviction’ ” quoting Vasquez v. Parrott, 318 F.3d 387, 390 (2d Cir.2003)). Therefore, construing Petitioner’s notice of appeal and appellate brief as an implied motion for leave to file a successive petition, see Pease v. Klinger, 115 F.3d 763, 764 (10th Cir.1997), we dismiss the motion as unnecessary and direct the district court to entertain Petitioner’s habeas petition. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     