Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70031

F R E D E R IC KB E L L , P e tit io n e r -A p p e lla n t,

ve r s us C H R IS T O P H E R B . E P P S , C om m i ssi on er, M i ssi ssi pp iD epa rt m en t of C orrec t i on s, R e s p o n d e n t -A p p e lle e .

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o r t he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c t o f M i s s i s s i ppi N o. 3: 04- C V

- 212

B ef ore SM ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es. JE R R YE

. SM ITH , C i rcui t Ju dg e: *

Fr e de r i c k Be l l , a d e a t h r o w i n m a t e , s e e k s a n e x p a n d e d c e r t i f i c a t e o f a ppe al ab i l i t y ( “ CO A” ) t o i nc l ude a ddi t i o nali s s ue s . W e de ny t he a ppl i c at i o n. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-70031 Document: 00511096885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 08- 70031

Batson v. Ken tu cky , 4 7 6U .S

. 7 9( 1 9 8 6). 1 2 I

. In 19 9 3 , a jury f

ou n d B ellgu i l ty of ca p i tal m u rd er an d sen ten ced h i m to d e a th

. T h e M is s is s ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t a ffir m e d

. B ell v. S ta te , 725 So. 2d 836 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ), cer t
. den i ed , 5 26 U

. S

. 112 2 ( 199 9)

. B el lun successf u l l y peti t i on ed fo r co lla te r a l re lie f. B ell v. S ta te , 8 7 9 S o . 2 d 4 2 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ), cer t
. den i ed , 543 U .S . 1 1 5 5 (2 0 0 5 ). B e ll w a s d e n i e d fe d e r a l p o s t-c o n v ic tio n re lie f. Bel lv . Epps , 2 0 0 8 W L 2 6 9 0 3 1 1 (N .D . M is s . J u n . 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 ). Bel lt he n m o ve d f

o r a CO A, w hi c h t he di s t r i c t c o ur t deni e d f o r m o s t o f

t he
c la im s b u t g r a n te d o n tw o is s u e s . Bel lv . Epps , 2 0 0 8 W L 3 8 2 3 7 6 6 (N .D . M is s ., A u g . 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 ). A s to th o s e tw o , w e a ffir m e d , Bel lv . Epps , 3 4 7 F

. A p p ’ x 7 3 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , wh e r e u p o n Be l lf i l e d t h e i n s t a n t mo t i o n f o r a n e x p a n d e d COA.

II. A pa rty se ek i n g a n ex p a n d ed C O A m u st m ee t th e ord i n a ry req u i rem en ts fo r a C O A

. See , e . g. , Un i t ed Stat es v. Ki m l er , 1 5 0 F .3d 4 2 9 , 4 3 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). Th at i s, he m ustm ake a “ subs t ant i als how i ng of t he deni alof

a c ons t i t ut i onal
r ig h t,” 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ), b y d e m o n s tr a tin gth a t “ r e a s o n a b le ju r is ts w o u ld f i n d the di st ri ctcourt ’ s a sses sm en t of t h e const i t u t i on al cl ai m s debatable or
w ron g,” S l ack v. McD an i el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ); seeal so Jacks on v. D r e t ke , 4 5 0 F .3d 6 1 4 , 6 1 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). B el ls ee ks t o e xpand hi s C O A to i ncl ude t hre e i ss ues : ( 1) t hat t he t r i al court erroneou sl y den i ed h i s j u ry ch al l en ges forcau se; (2) tha t cou n selrendered i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce by w ai vi n g B el l ’ s B ats on ri gh t t o contes t t h e st ate’ s use 1 of perem ptory c h al l en ges; an d ( 3) t h at t h e voi r di re w as defi ci en t
. E ach of t h ose i s s u e s wa s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n Be l l ’ s e a r l i e r re que s t f o r a COA. T h e cou rt de n i ed t h a t r e q u est, i n corp ora ti n g b y re feren ce th e rea son i n g in i ts Case: 08-70031 Document: 00511096885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 08- 70031

Nowh er e i nhi s brief do esB ell maketh e cl aimth at th e “tri al co u rtd elib er ate lymi s- 2 appli ed th e l aw in order to force [him] to use a peremptory challe nge tocorrect the court’s er

ro r, Martinez-Salazar , 52 8 U .S. at31 6, and nothing inth e re cord sugge sts that th at was th e ca se . At a nyr ate , Martinez-Salazarmere lyle ft ope n the que stionwhether deliberate action b yth e di strictc ourtwo u ldwarr a nt rev er sal, se e id

. (“[N]o que stion is presented h ere wheth er such anerror would warrant reve rsal.”), and so would not c onstitute“cl early estab lish ed F eder al law, a s d et er mi n edb yth e Supr em e C ourt ,”2 8U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 4 (d)( 1 ). 3 c o m p r e h e n s iv e d e n i a l o f B e ll ’s h a b e a s p e t it io n . B e c a u s e th e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s d i s p o s i t i o n i s n o t d e b a t a b l e b y j u r i s t s o f r e a s o n , we d e n y a n e x p a n d e d COA.

III. B el lcontends that t h e t ri al courterr on eou sl y den i ed h i s c h al l en ges f or c a u s e a s to fo u r ju r o r s , w h ic h re q u ir e d h im to u s e fo u r o f h is p e r e m p to r y ch a ll enges t o ke ep t hem of f the j ury. H i s c l ai m t hat t hat vi ol at ed hi s c ons t i t ut i onal
r i g ht s i s f

o r e c l o s e d by Uni t e d St at e s v . Mar t i ne z - Sal az ar , 528 U

. S. 304, 317 (2 0 0 0 ), w h ic h h e ld t h a t “ a d e fe n d a n t’s e x e r c is e o f p e r e m p to r y ch a lle n g e s . . . is
n o t d e n ie d o r im p a ir e d w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t c h o o s e s to u s e a p e r e m p to r y ch a ll en ge t o rem ove a j u ror w h o sh ou l d h ave been excused forcause. ” B el l , l i ke M art i n ez- S al azar, “ h ad t h e opti on of l et t i n g [ each al l ege dl y- bi ased p ot en t i al j u ror] si t on t he pet i t j ury and, upon c onvi c t i on, purs u[ e] a Si xt h A m endm ent c hal l enge on ap p ea l

. ” Id

. at 315. B u t i n st ead , B el l , l i ke M art i n ez- S al azar, el ected t o rem o v e th e fo u rju r o r s b e c a u s e h e d id n o t w a n t t h e m o n th e ju r y . Se e i d.

“ I n c ho o s i ng t o r e m o ve [ e ac h j ur o r ] r at he r t han t ak i ng hi s c hanc e s o n a ppeal , [ B el l ] di d n otl os e a per em pt or y c hal l enge. Rathe r , he us ed t he c hal l enge i n l i ne w i t h a pr i nci palr eas on forpere m pt or i es : to h el p sec ure the c ons t i t ut i onal gu a ra n tee of tri a lby an i m p a rti a lj u ry . ” Id

. at 315- 16. T h e d i st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i s s alo f

t he c l ai m i s no t unr e as o nab l e o rde ba t ab l e a m o ng j ur i s t s o f r e as o n. 2

I V. B e ll co n te n d s th a t h is tr ia l co u n s e l re n d e r e d in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y fa ilCase: 08-70031 Document: 00511096885 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 08- 70031

Our review i s removed some what from this standar d, given our limit ed fo cus on 3 wh eth erth e di sp os itio ni s d eb atab leb yr ea so n ab lej u ri st s. 4 i ng t o chal l enge t he st at e’ s al l ege dl y di sc r i m i nat or y us e o f per em pt or y c hal l enges, as w as h i s ri gh t un der B at s on v. K e nt ucky , 4 76 U

. S. 7 9 ( 19 86 )

. A s uc c e s s f ul i n ef fect i ve- assi st an ce cl ai m requi res show i n g both that c ou n sel ’ s perf orm an ce
w a s d e fic ie n t a n d th a t t h e d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e p r eju d ic e d t h e d e fe n s e . S ee S t ri ckl an dv. W

ash i ngt on , 4 66 U

. S. 66 8, 6 87 ( 19 84 )

. Cou ns e lm us t ha ve “ m ad e e r r o r s s o s e r io u s th a t co u n s e l w a s n o t fu n c tio n in g a s th e ‘ c o u n s e l’ g u a r a n te e d

. . . b y th e S i xth A m en d m en t. ” I d. D e fic ie n c yis ju d g e d b y a n o b je c tiv e s ta n d a r d , i d. at6 88

- 89 , w i t h a “ s t r o ng pr e s um pt i o n t hatc o uns e l ’ s c o nduc t fal l s w i t hi n t he
w id e ra n g e o f r e a s o n a b le p r o fe s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e ,” i d. at 689. Prej u di ce r equ i res a “ r e as o nab l e pr o ba bi l i t y t hat , but f o r t he de f

i c i e nt pe r f

o r m anc e o f hi s t r i alc o unsel, th e ou tcom e of h i s ca p i tal m u rd er tri a lw ou l d h a ve be en dif feren t. ” A vi l a v. Q uar t e r m an , 5 6 0 F .3 d 2 9 9 , 3 1 3 (5 th C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 1 3 0 S

. C t. 5 3 6 (20 0 9 ). A s w e s ta te d in a p r e v io u s ite r a tio n o f th is ca s e , B el l ’ s s en t en ci n g cl ai m w as a deq u atel y dev el oped in stat e cou rt , so i t i s a nal yz e d un de r t he us uals t and ar ds o f t he Ant i t e r rori sm a nd Ef fe c t i ve D e at h Pe nal t y Actof 199 6 ( “AE D PA ” )

. Thus , be c aus e t he M i ss i ss i ppiSuprem e Court det er m i ned, on t he m er i t s, t hat B el lhad received con st i t u t i on al l y ad equ ate assi st an ce of cou n selat sentenci ng, w e c an gr ant r el i ef onl y o n a f

i ndi ng t hat thatc onc l usi on ‘ w as contrary t o, or i n vol ved an u n reasona bl e ap pl i cat i on , of ’t h e W as hi ngt on stan d a rd

. ” B ell , 3 4 7 F

. A p p ’ x a t 7 9 (cita tion s o m itted ). 3 B el lpoi n t s us t o t h e p ort i on of t h e t ran scr i pt w h ere hi s c ou n seldi scussed Bat s o n i m m e di at e l y af t e r j ur y s e l e c t i o n, s t at i ng t hat “ t he fai l ur e b y t he D e fe ndant t o a ss er t a B ats on chal l en ge t o a n y of the perem ptory cha l l en ges exerci sed b y th e S ta te w a s a ta c tic a l d e c is io n th a t w a s m a d e a fte r d u e co n s id e r a tio n . . . .” Af t e r r e fe r e nc i ng a r e c e nt M i s s i s s i ppio pi ni o n, c o unsel a dd ed, “ [ I ] t [ i s ] m y unCase: 08-70031 Document: 00511096885 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 08- 70031

See, e.g. , Wesb rookv. T haler , 5 8 5F

. 3 d2 4 5 , 2 5 1 ( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 9 ), c e r t. denied , 78 4 U. S. L .W

. 3 5 4 7(U. S. Mar. 2 2 , 2 0 1 0). This makes B ell’s re liance on Winters v. Coo k , 4 6 6 F .2 d 1 3 9 3( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 7 2 ), rev’d en 5 banc , 489 F.2d 17 4 (5th Cir. 1973), especiallyperplexing . I n contrast to B ell , Winter s “ha d n o ideath at he coul d obje ct toth e j urycompo sitio n.” Id

. at 1395
. (At any rate , we l aterreversed en banc th e holdingbo lstere d byth e l anguage on which Be ll reli es.) An d, ho weverimpe rfect coun sel’s performance was, Bell provides nothing beyond his mere assertion to suppor this cl aimth at co u n se l wa s gro sslyn egli gent ori n co mp et ent. Cf. Winters v. Coo k , 48 9 F .2d 1 74, 1 7 8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 7 3 ) (e nb a n c)

. Furth ermore , th ere is no indic atio n that coun sel’s lab elingof the reaso n for his failing 6 to r aise a Batsonch all enge a s tactical was a post-ho c rationaliz atio n “rath er than a genuine (c ontinu ed

.. .) 5 derst an di n g t h at i f

I rai sed t h e B ats on cha l l en ge t o t h em . . . I w ou l d, l i kew i se, h ave to j u st i f

y m y cha l l en ges, an d the cha l l en ges of t h e D efen da n t , an d di d n ot fe e l th a t [s ic ] w a s w is e . . . ,” a n d t h e n a d d e d a g a in t h a t h is re a s o n w a s “t a c tic a l.” T h e M i ssi ssi pp iSu prem e C ou rt , hea ri n g t h e cl ai m on p ost

- convic t i on revi ew , concl u ded t h at c ou n selha d m i si n t erpret ed the rel evan t casel aw . W e agree t h at, t o t h e ext en tt h at c ou n selfel t t h at t h e st ate’ s a b il i t y t o chal l en ge t h e defe n d a n t’s u s e o f p e r e m p to r ie s h in g e d o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s d e c is io n to m a k e a s im il ar chal l en ge, he m i si n t erpret ed federal l aw . N evert h el ess, a s bot h t h e M i ssi ss ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t a n d th e fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t p o in te d o u t, se e B ell , 879 So. 2 d a t 4 3 5 -3 6 ; B ell , 200 8 W L 269 031 1, at *22, such a m i sun derst an di n g does n ot in e x o r a b ly le a d t o a fin d in go f d e fic ie n c y , s e e , e . g. , Engl e v . I s aac , 456 U

. S. 107, 134 ( 198 2)

. I n deed , “ [ t ] h e const i t u t i on al requ i rem en t d oes n ot d em an d error l ess coun sel , bu t rat h er ‘ coun sel

. . . renderi n g reasona bl y ef fect i ve assi st an ce, gi ven th e totali ty of t h e circu m stan ces.” Un ited S ta tes v. C o ck re ll , 720 F. 2d 1423, 1425 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) (c ita tio n s o m itt e d ). T h ere i s a “ st rong p resum pti on ” of com petency i n i n ef

fect i ve- assi st an ce ca se s. E v e n if

co u n se l m isu n d e rs to o d th e p re cise co n to u rs of B ats on , t h e rec ord 4 i n d ic a te s th a t he i n form ed B ellof th a t ri gh t, discu sse d w i th h i m w h eth er to 5 rai se s u ch a cha l l en ge, an d m ad e a t act i caldeci si on not t o do so. 6 Case: 08-70031 Document: 00511096885 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 08- 70031

(...continu ed) 6 accoun to f

[hi s] deci sion -making pro cess.” Richards v. Quarterman , 56 6 F .3d 5 53, 569(5th C ir

. 2 0 0 9). Cf. , e. g. , Blan to n v. Quarterman , 54 3 F .3d 2 30, 23 5 (5th Cir. 2 008) (statingth at peti- 7 tion erb earsth e b u rd eno f provin gp re j u dice), cert . de nied , 1 2 9S

. C t. 2 3 8 3( 2 0 0 9). B ellcl aims, in the alte rnative, th at prej udic e sh oul d bepre sumed because (1) there 8 was stateinvo lvementinth e viol atio n, and (2) the assistance of cou nselwas effectivelydenied entirely . But Bell’s statement th at the “trial j udge inac curatelyexplained Batsonto Pe titio ner a n d re info rc edtri al co u n se l’ s in co rr ect expl a n ationo f Batson” i s no t tru e. An d, likewise, nothing inth e re cord len ds cred ence to the clai m that B ell’s co unse l was so deficient th at he “fail ed to subj ect the prosecution’s case to m eaningful adversari al testin g,” Un ited St atesv . Cro n ic , 466U.S. 648 , 65 9 (1 984), suchth at ther e was “actu al or c onstructive denial of th e a ssistanc e of co unse l altogethe r,” Washin gton , 46 6 U .S. at69 2. A EDPA requires a petitione r to exhau st state remedie s in compli anc e withstat e pro- 9 ce dure s. See, e. g. , Am os v. Scott , 6 1 F .3 d 3 3 3 , 3 3 8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 5 ); see a lso28 U.S. C. 6 F u r th e r m o r e , B e ll ’ s re q u e s t fo r re lie f u ltim a te ly fa ils , b e c a u s e h e is u n a b le t o m ak e t h e requ i si t e show i n g t h at he w as prej u di ced. B el lasks us to i n fer di s- 7
c r i m i nat i o n f

r o m t he m e r e fac t s t hathe i s b l ac k, t he v i c t i m w as w hi t e , a nd t he j ur y c o ns i s t e d o f e l e ve n w hi t e s and o nl y o ne b l ac k. H e po i nt s t o no t hi ng i n t he
r ec or d t hat s ugges t s he c oul d m ake o ut a p rim a fa cie c a s e o f p u r p o s e f

u ld i s c r i mi nat i on; be r ef

t of dat a and af

f i davi t s, he has onl y hi s c onc l usi onals t at em ent t hat di sc r i m i nat i on m usthave oc c urr ed. Th at i s t oo s pec ul at i ve SS p a r tic u la r ly s o in 8 l i gh t of t h e “ h i gh b u rden of act u al prej u di ce r equ i red t o prove i n ef fect i ve assi sta n c e of cou n sel. ” C art er v. Joh n son , 131 F. 3d 452, 464 ( 5t h C i r . 1997)

. A s to t h i s, w e concl u de, reasonab l e j u ri st s c ou l d n ot di sagree.
V

. B el l ta k es i ssue w i t h t h e voi r di re . Spec i f i c al l y, he c l ai m s t hat t he t r i al
c our t ’ s and co unsel ’ s i nact i on fai l ed t o r es ul t i n an un bi as ed j ury. B el l ’ s c om pl ai n t abou t t h e a d e q u acy of t h e voi r di re is p r o c e d u r a lly b a r r e d

. T h e M i s s i s s i p p iSu p r e me Co u r t d e t e r mi n e d a s m u c h o n d i r e c t r e v i e w,

9 Case: 08-70031 Document: 00511096885 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 08- 70031

(...continu ed) 9 § 2 2 5 4 (b)( 1 )(

A ). See, e.g. , Hu nter v. State , 6 8 4S o. 2 d 6 2 5 , 6 3 1 (Mi ss. 1 9 9 6); Fosterv. State , 639 So. 2 d 10 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 7 0(Mi ss. 1 9 9 4); My ersv. State , 5 6 5S o. 2 d 5 5 4 , 5 5 7(Mi ss. 1 9 9 0); Colev. State , 525So. 2 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9(Mi ss. 1 9 9 4); Pic kett v. State , 4 4 3S o. 2 d 7 9 6 , 7 9 9(Mi ss. 1 9 8 3 ). 7 n ot i n g t h at “ a pa rt y w h o fai l s t o obj ect t o t h e j u ry’ s com posi t i on bef ore i t i s em p a n eled w a i ve s an y righ t to com p l a i n the rea ft er.” B ell , 725 So. 2d at844. That h ol di n g w as i n keep in g w it h t h e l on gst an di n g rul e i n i t s c asel aw . Fu rt h er- 10
m o r e , th e fa c t th a t t h a t c o u r t t h e n w e n t o n to d is c u s s th e m e r its o f th e is s u e is i r r el evant
. W e “ m ustappl y t he pr oc edur albar nonet hel es s, f or an al t er nat i ve c o n c lu s io n o n th e m e r its d o e s n o t v itia te th e s ta te co u r t ’s p r o c e d u r a l h o ld in g .” B e ll, 347 F. A pp’ x at78 n. 10 ( c i t i ng H ughes v. D r e t ke , 4 1 2 F

. 3 d 5 8 3 , 59 2 -93 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 )). W he r e a st at e pr i s o ne r has defaul t e d hi s fe de r alcl ai m s i n s t at e c o ur t under an i n dep en den t an d ad equ ate s t ate procedu ralru l e, “federalh abea s r evi ew o f th e c la im s is b a r r e d u n le s s th e p r is o n e r c a n d e m o n s tr a te ca u s e fo r th e d e fa u lt and a c t ualpr ej udi c e as a re s ul t of t he al l e ge d vi o l at i o n of fe de r all aw, o r de m o nst rat e t h at fai l u re to c on si der t h e cl ai m s w i l lres u l t i n a f u n da m en t al m i scarri a ge of j u sti ce.” C ol em an v. T h ompson , 50 1 U

. S

. 72 2 , 7 5 0 ( 1 9 9 1 ). B ellpo i n ts to n o “ob j ective ex tern a lfa ctor [t h a t] i m p ed ed the de fen se co u n sel’ s ab i l i ty to
com p l y w i th the state’ s p roce d u ra lru l es,” Mart i n v. Maxey , 98 F

. 3 d 84 4 , 84 9 ( 5 th C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng H i l lv. B l ack , 932 F

. 2d 369 , 372

- 73 (5t h C i r. 199 1) , nor does h e cla im to b e a c tu a lly in n o c e n t, se e id

. H e c a n n o t s h ow act u al prej u di ce ora fu n d a m e n ta l m is c a r r ia g e o f ju s tic e , cf

. i d. , so r eas onabl e j uri st s w oul d not di sa g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is p o s itio n o f th e cla im

. T h e a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a n e x p a n d e d C OAi s DE NI ED

. Case: 08-70031 Document: 00511096885 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/30/2010