1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

November 13, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40535

Summary Calendar

IREL BOBB, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-99-CV-601

--------------------

Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Irel Bobb, Jr., Texas prisoner # 770532, was convicted by a

jury in 1996 of two aggravated robberies and was sentenced to forty

years in prison. Bobb filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in the

distric t court challenging his convictions. The district court

granted the respondent’s summar y judgment motion and dismissed

Bobb’s petition with prejudice. After Bobb filed a timely notice

o f appeal, the district court granted a certificate of2

appealability (“COA”) only on Bobb’s cl aims of a due process

violation and ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from

alleged improper remarks made by the prosecutor during voir dire.

On ap p eal, Bobb challenges only the prosecutor’s comment

proclaiming himself to be a Christian. Thus he has waived

his right to challenge any of the other remarks made by the

prosecutor during voir dire. S ee Smith v. Cockrell

, 311 F.3d 661,

679 n.12 (5th Cir. 2002), petition for cert. filed

, (U.S. June 16,

2003) (No. 02-1 1309). To the extent that Bobb attempts to raise

any claims other than those on which COA was specifically granted,

we will not review those claims in the absence of an express

request that this court broaden the grant of COA. S ee Ott v.

Johnson , 192 F.3d 510, 512 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999).

Bobb argues that the p rosecutor’s comment so irreversibly

influenced the jury against him before the trial even started that

he was denied his due process right to a fair trial. The district

court dismissed this claim as procedurally barred. In light of the

overwhelming evidence of Bobb’s guilt presented at trial, Bobb has

not demons trated actual prejudice from the remark, which is

necessary to overcome the pro cedural bar. S ee Renz v. Scott

, 28

F.3d 431, 432 (5th Cir. 1994). N or has Bobb shown that, as a

factual matter, he was actually innocent of the crimes of

conviction. S ee Ward v. Ca in , 53 F.3d 106, 108 (5th Cir. 1995).

Consequently, Bobb has failed to show that the district court erred

in dismissing his claim as procedurally barred.3

Bobb also argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance

by failing to object to the prosecutor’s alleged improper remark.

Bobb has not shown error in the district court’s finding that the

failure to o bject was not deficient performance because counsel

could reasonably have thought that such an objection might alienate

any Christians on the jury. Moreover, in light of the overwhelming

evidence of his guilt, Bobb has not shown actual prejudice

r esulting from the failure to object. Thus, Bobb has not shown

th at the district court erred in dismissing this claim.

See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689-94 (1984); Bridge

v. Lynaugh , 838 F.2d 770, 773 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.