* Pursuant to 5 TH Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH Cir. R.

47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

No. 00-50720

_______________________________

DIONICIO A. CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-155)

_________________________________________________ August 8, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Petitioner-Appellant Dionicio A. Cruz appeals the district

court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm the decision of the district court.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Cruz was convicted in 1977 of aggravated assault on a peace

officer and two counts of attempted capital murder for firing on1 Cruz v. State , 645 S.W.2d 498 (Tex. App. —— San Antonio

1982).

2 Cruz v. State , 770 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

2 law enforcement officers who had come t o his home to serve a

narcotics search warrant, seriously wounding one officer and

hitting another’s jacket. His state convictions were affirmed on

direct appeal by the Fourth Court of Appeals 1 a n d the Texas Court

o f Criminal Appeals; 2 two state habeas applications wer e

unsuccessful. Cruz was sentenced to three concurrent fifty-year

prison terms and was paroled in 1984.

In 199 3, Cruz was convicted on federal drug charges and

sentenced to 96 months in federal prison. Based on this

conviction, the State of Texas lodged a detainer against Cruz for

violation of his parole. While serving his federal sentence, Cruz

filed this § 2254 habeas petition attacking his 1977 convictions.

Cruz now has been released from federal prison, but parole on his

state conviction runs until October 2011.

In his federal habeas corpus peti tion, Cruz asserts two

constitution violations concerning the testimony of police officer

Ray Hernandez, who was involved in Cruz’s arrest and discovered a

balloon containing heroin inside a shampoo bottle in Cruz’s

bathroom. Cruz alleges that Hernandez planted the heroin in his

home.

While on the witness stand at his trial, the prosecution asked3 Subsequently, the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals ruled

that Hernandez’s statements should not have been admitted because

they were not disclosed to the defense. Cruz v. State , 645

S.W.2d at 503.

3 Cruz whet her he had spoken to Hernandez since his arrest. Cruz

testified first that he had not, and then that he could not

remember. When called by the prosecutor to rebut Cruz’s testimony,

Hernandez testified that Cruz approached him twice during pretrial

proceedings at the county courthouse approximately six months after

the shootout and two years before trial. According to Hernandez,

Cruz first asked him whether he was the officer who had discovered

heroin in the house, and later said: “You know, we are going to

have to take a lot of tests. . . . I’ll get you. We’ll get you.”

Defense counsel objected th at Hernandez’s testimony, and a

written report he made regarding Cr uz’s statements, had not been

disclosed pretrial. The objection was overruled. 3 Cruz then asked

to be allowed (1) to present evidence that he had t aken (and

passed) a polygraph examination, as the prosecution had opened the

door by eliciting testimony regarding “tests ,” and (2) to offer

surrebuttal testimony to explain his statements to Hernandez. Cruz

stated on the record but outside the presence of the jury that he

vaguely recalled the conversation, and that what he meant was that

he and Hernandez would have to “take a polygraph test to prove who

is telling the truth” about the heroin. Cruz stated that he meant

that he would “get” the officer in court. The trial court denied

Cruz’s requests, and the prosecution referred to the alleged threat4 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

5 378 U.S. 368 (1964).

6 Cruz v. Johnson , No. SA-96-CA-155-EP, 2000 WL 33349965

(W.D. Tex. June 19, 2000).

7 Id. at *4.

8 Id.

4 twice during closing arguments, using it to portray Cruz as a liar

who had threatened Hernandez with bodily harm.

Cruz alleges that these ev ents denied his rights to due

process and a fair trial by (1) violating his Sixth Amendment right

to testify in his own behalf through surrebuttal testimony, and (2)

the prosecution’s failure to disclose pretrial Hernandez’s

testimony concerning Cruz’s statements, in violation of B ra dy v.

Maryland 4 and Jackson v. Denno

. 5 The district court denied Cruz’s

habeas petition, finding that Cruz had merely r aised a state

evidentiary question, not a constitutional violation.

More than ten days after the district court’s judgment, Cruz

filed a motion for reconsideration. The district court again

denied the habeas petition, but this time on different grounds. 6

The district court concluded that the state trial court had

committed constitutional error by impeding Cruz’s right to testify

on his own behalf through the surrebuttal testimony. 7 The court

nonetheless denied habeas relief, concluding that the error did not

render Cruz’s trial fundamentally unfair, because Hernandez’s

testimony was not central to the case. 89 Halicki v. La. Casino Cruises, Inc. , 151 F.3d 465, 470

(5th Cir. 1998).

10 Id.

5 Cruz was late in filing his notice of appeal, which he filed

simultaneously with a motion for extension of time to file his

notice of appeal; and the district court granted the motion. The

district court granted Cruz a certificate of appealability (“COA”)

with respect to its decision that his trial was not rendered

fundamentally unfair by the trial court’s refusal to allow Cruz to

explain Hernandez’s testimony on surrebuttal. The district court

denied COA on all other issues.

II.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Cruz filed this petition on February 29, 1996, before the

April 24, 1996 effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Pre-AEDPA habeas law therefore

applies to his § 2254 petition. As Cruz’s motion for

reconsideration was not timely filed, it must be considered

pursuant to Rule 60(b). 9 Denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed

for abuse of discretion. 10

B. Constitutional Claim

Raising the issue of our jurisdiction sua s ponte , we first

note that we have jurisdiction over this § 2254 appeal because

Cruz, as a parolee, remains “in custody” for federal habeas11 Jones v. Cunningham , 371 U.S. 236, 242-43 (1963).

12 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 508.143(a) (Vernon 1999).

13 See Jones v. Cunningham , 371 U.S. at 242-43.

14 Rock v. Arkansas , 483 U.S. 44, 49 (1987); Emery v.

Johnson , 139 F.3d 191, 198 (5th Cir. 1997).

15 See, e.g.

, Castillo v. Johnson , 141 F.3d 218, 222 (5th

Cir. 1998) (holding that state trial court’s exclusion of results

of polygraph test based on Texas evidentiary rule that polygraph

results are inadmissible did not violate federal constitutional

rights).

6 purposes. 11 We further note that, because a releasee is in the

legal custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”)

Pardons and Paroles Division while he is on parole, 12 TDCJ Director

Wayne Scott continues to be the appropriate respondent in this

habeas corpus petition. 13

A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to

testify in his own defense. 14 We hold that, although under Texas

law Cruz could not have discussed whether he took a polygraph test

or its results, 15 his Sixth Amendment rights were violate d by the

trial court’s refusal to allow him to explain Hernandez’s testimony

through surrebuttal.

To determine whether the district court was correct in finding

that the constitutional error was harmless, we must review the

entire trial record de novo to ascertain that “‘the error did not

influence the jury,’ and that ‘the judgment was not substantially16 Lowery v. Collins , 996 F.2d 770, 773 (5th Cir. 1993)

(quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 642 (1993) (Stevens,

J., concurring)).

7 swayed by the error.’” 16 We have complied with that mandate,

reviewing de novo the entire record, including the complete

transcript of the four days of evidence presented in Cruz’s trial.

As a result of that review, we agree with the district court that

the error was harmless: Ample other evidence was adduced at trial

to show that Cruz was guilty of the offenses of which he was

convicted —— attempted capital murder and aggravated assault on a

peace officer. The statements that Cruz made to Hernandez more

than a year after the shootout cannot be considered central to his

conviction. We do not perceive that they had any substantial

effect on the jury or its verdict.

Cruz presented evidence at trial that the plainclothes police

officers involved in the raid on his home did not identify

themselves as such before they awakened him that morning by banging

on his front and back doors and breaking his windows. Cruz

testified that he fired only in fright and self-defense, and

stopped shooting immediately when an officer threw his badge into

the house in response to Cruz’s request for identification.

The jury nonetheless was entitled to believe contradi ctory

testimony from the law enforc ement officers involved in the raid

that they had announced their identity before Cruz began shooting

at them, and that he fired again after looking at the badge. Two17 O’Neal v. McAninch , 513 U.S. 432, 437-38 (1995) (quoting

Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)).

8 officers also testified that they heard a toilet inside the house

flush repeatedly during the shooting, which could have led jurors

to conclude that Cr uz was holding the police at bay with gunfire

while his wife, also in the house, attempted to destroy drug

evidence. Our careful review of the record does not convince us

that the jury was swayed in assessing guilt for the shootout based

on Cruz’s after-the-fact courthouse comments to Hernandez, or on

any alleged vendetta against the police. The twenty-page

transcript of the prosecutor’s summati on includes just over one

page of comments on Cruz’s courthouse encounter with Hernandez. We

do not find that the jury was substantially swayed by this

unrebutted evidence. To the contrary, we can “‘say with fair

assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the

erroneous action from the whole, that the jud gment was not

substantially swayed by the error.’” 17

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of

habeas corpus relief is

AFFIRMED.