United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-30720 

Summary Calendar 

Taylor Carlisle, 

Petitioner—Appellant, 

versus

Joseph P. Lopinto, III, Sheriff and Administrator of Jefferson Parish 

Correctional Center, State of Louisiana, 

Respondent—Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 2:16-CV-838 

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Taylor Carlisle appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application 

that challenged his state-court judgment and six-month sentence for 

contempt. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

June 1, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-30720 Document: 00516339973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
No. 20-30720 

2 

its conclusions of law de novo. Martinez v. Johnson, 255 F.3d 229, 237 (5th 

Cir. 2001). We are also guided by the deferential standard owed a state 

court’s adjudication of a petitioner’s federal claims. Id. at 242–43; see 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(d). Finding no error by the district court, we AFFIRM. 

First, Carlisle’s contention that the contempt judgment exceeded the 

drug court’s statutory authority pleads a violation only of state law and fails 

to state a cognizable basis for Section 2254 relief. See Beazley v. Johnson, 242 

F.3d 248, 261 (5th Cir. 2001); § 2254(a). Carlisle does not otherwise show 

that his contempt judgment violated his due process rights to notice and a 

hearing. See Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537 (1925). Furthermore, 

while Carlisle focuses on the drug court’s finding that he failed to appear, the 

court’s contempt judgment was based on Carlisle’s misrepresentations and 

his prior history of sanctions. 

Second, we consider that Carlisle may be asserting more than a 

violation of state law by arguing that he was denied due process in relation to 

his appeal of his contempt judgment because the drug court proceedings were 

not transcribed. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67–68. Even if that is a federal claim, 

he fails to show that the lack of a drug court transcript rendered his state court 

proceedings fundamentally unfair and thus deprived him of due process. See 

Manning v. Warden, La. State Penitentiary, 786 F.2d 710, 711–12 (5th Cir. 

1986). Carlisle makes no showing that the absence of a transcript rendered 

the state courts’ review of his contempt judgment — based, in part, on the 

drug court’s two detailed opinions — inadequate or ineffective, nor does he 

suggest what additional relevant information a transcript would have 

provided. “[C]laims based on incomplete transcripts must show that the 

absence of such a transcript prejudiced [the defendant’s] appeal.” 

Higginbotham v. Louisiana, 817 F.3d 217, 222 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Case: 20-30720 Document: 00516339973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
No. 20-30720 

3 

Third, Carlisle argues that his contempt sentence was excessive under 

state law. The argument fails, because “it is not the province of a federal 

habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 

questions.” Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67–68. His only citation to clearly established 

Supreme Court law is to an irrelevant opinion. Superintendent, Massachusetts 

Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). 

Fourth, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

Section 2254 relief without an evidentiary hearing. See Blue v. Thaler, 665 

F.3d 647, 655 (5th Cir. 2011). Even if Carlisle were not barred from receiving 

a federal evidentiary hearing under Section 2254(e)(2), he fails to show that 

the state courts “did not provide him with a full and fair hearing” on his 

federal claims simply because there was no verbatim transcript of the drug 

court contempt hearing. See id. He neither shows how the record before the 

state courts was actually insufficient to adjudicate his claims nor, as noted, 

suggests what additional information a transcript would have provided. 

Finally, there was no error in the district court’s rejection of Carlisle’s 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Both the contempt finding and related six-month 

sentence were within the state court’s lawful authority and based on facts 

that Carlisle does not dispute. Reasonable counsel could have concluded that 

an objection to either would have been futile. See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 

524, 528 (5th Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-30720 Document: 00516339973 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2022