1

The Honorable Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-1290

___________

Bernard Wayne Williams, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Michael Groose; Missouri * [UNPUBLISHED]

Attorney General, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 5, 1996

 Filed: January 26, 1996 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Bernard Williams appeals the district court's1

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We affirm.

After a jury trial, Williams was found guilty of forcible

rape, forcible sodomy, and stealing more than $150. On direct

appeal, Williams complained of ambiguity in the sentence, his

classification as a class X offender, and the denial of his motion

for a mistrial. The court clarified the sentence and affirmed the

conviction. Williams's state post-conviction motion and motion to

recall the mandate were unsuccessful.
-2-

Williams filed this federal habeas petition, alleging that his

return to Missouri after his arrest in Kansas was without any

lawful authority, and that the trial court erred in overruling

defense counsel's motion to suppress evidence and statements,

because the police officers arrested Williams without probable

cause. As cause for his failure to raise these claims on direct

appeal, Williams alleged his appellate counsel was ineffective.

The district court denied Williams's habeas petition, concluding

that Williams's claims were procedurally barred, that his appellate

counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for electing to raise

on appeal only those claims she found most likely to be successful,

and that Williams had not shown "actual innocence." 

Williams renews his arguments on appeal and additionally

argues he should not have been found guilty because a laboratory

report revealed that blood, saliva, and hair samples did not match

those of Williams, and his trial counsel was ineffective for not

introducing this report into evidence.

Initially, we note Williams's claim that his trial counsel was

ineffective in failing to present the laboratory report into

evidence is unreviewable, as Williams raises this issue for the

first time on appeal. See United States v. Dixon, 51 F.3d 1376,

1383 (8th Cir. 1995). We agree with the district court that

Williams's remaining claims were procedurally barred. See Whitmill

v. Armontrout, 42 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 1994) (failure to

exhaust state remedies by presenting claims to state court results

in procedural bar unless petitioner demonstrates cause and

prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice), cert. denied,

116 S. Ct. 249 (1995). We also agree with the district court that

Williams's appellate counsel was not constitutionally ineffective

for failing to raise every ground Williams requested. See Smith v.

Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 536 (1986). Finally, we do not believe that

failure to consider these claims would result in a fundamental

miscarriage of justice, as there was sufficient other evidence of
-3-

Williams's guilt. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.