### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-60103 Summary Calendar

TERRY DORA, Petitioner - Appellant

v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTI O N S; WARDEN FLORENCE JONES; LAWRENCE KELLY, Respondents - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:08-CV-170

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pursuant to a certifica t e o f a ppealability (COA) granted by the district court, Terry Dora, Mississippi prisoner # R2153, challenges the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. It challenged his jury - t rial conviction for possession of more than 30 grams of cocaine, for which he was sentenced to 60- years’ imprisonment. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 11 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60103 Document: 00511882652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2012No. 11-60103

Dora moved our court t o expand the COA to include additional claims addressed i n his brief, but our court denied that motion. Therefore, our court has jurisdiction to review only the two claims of prosecutorial misconduct that the district court c e rt i f i e d

. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Carty v. Thaler , 583 F.3d 244, 266 (5th Cir. 2009). Dora contends the district cou rt e rr e d in rejecting his claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. A prosecutor’s comment on defendant’ s de cision not to testify warrants habeas relief o nly if it “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining th e j u ry’ s verdict”. Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 627 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fry v. Pliler , 551 U.S. 112, 120 (2007) (holding Brecht harmless-error standard “subsumes” deference owed under § 2 2 5 4 ( d) t o state court’s denial of such constitutional claim on merits). In the light of the evidence presented at his trial, Dora failed to make such a showing. Although he contends the closing argument also violated the Mississippi C o n s t i t u t ion, “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law”

. E.g., Estelle v. M

c G u i re , 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, Dora contends, for the first time in his reply brief, that the prosecutor made other i m proper comments. “This court does not entertain arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” United States v. Ramirez , 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009). R e l yi n g on Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Dora contends the State violated his due-process rights by failing to inform him prior to trial that

a witness intended to incriminate Dora a n d t o r e cant her previous statement tha t th e c o c aine in question belonged to her. Dora does not, however, dispute the district court’s finding that the State disclosed the witness’ initial statement. The Brady rule “applies only to impeachment and exculpatory evidence; neutral

or inculpatory evidence lies out s i d e its coverage”. United States v. Nixon , 881
2 Case: 11-60103 Document: 00511882652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2012No. 11-60103

F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir. 1989). In addition, evidence is material and therefore subject to disclosure under Brady “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclos e d t o t h e defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different”. United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). Dora fails to show the district court erred in ruling that the witness’ int e nt to incriminate Dora fell outside the scope of Brady

. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-60103 Document: 00511882652 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2012