Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10915 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M ARTY W AYN E BELL Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant

v. N A T HA N I E L Q U A R T E R MA N , D I R E C T O R , T E XA S D E P A R T ME N T OF CR I M I NAL J US T I CE , C OR RE CT I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DIVI S I ON R espon den t

- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 05- C V

- 272

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D E N N IS an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Pet i t i oner - appel l ant M a r t y W ayne Bel l , Texas pr i so ner# 11 12384, w as f o und guil t y o f m ur de r and w as s e nt e nc e d t o 65 ye ar s i n pr i s o n. H e ha s f i l e d a 28 U

. S

. C

. § 2254 peti t i on chal l en gi n g t h i s c on vi ct i on , argu i n g i n rel evan tpart th a t t h e tri a lcou rt de n i edh i m du e p roce ss b y n ot p rotectingB ell ’ s ri gh t t o t est i f y an d that t ri alcoun selrendered i n ef fect ive as sis t an ce of

coun selby n ot United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust3, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 10915

2 ca l l i n g B ellto t estif

y. U n d er th e A n ti terror i sm a n dE ff ective D ea th P en a l ty A ct, federalcourt s w i l l n ot gran t h abea s rel i ef on an y cl ai m t h at w as adjudic ated on t he m e r i t s i n s t at e c o ur tpr o c e e di ngs unl e s s t he s t at e c o ur t ’ s r ul i ng w as t he

r e s u lt o f “a d e c is io n th a t w a s co n tr a r yto , o rin v o lv e da n u n r e a s o n a b le
a p p l i c a t i o n o f, c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e dF e d e r a ll a w , a s d e t e r mi n e db yt h e S u p r e me C our tof

t he U ni t ed St at es , ” ori f t he s t at e c our tdec i si on “ w as bas ed o n an
unr e as o nab l e de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he fac t s i n l i ght o f t he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n t he St at e c o ur tpr o c e e di ng. § 2 25 4( d)

. “ [A] fe de r alha be as c o ur tm ak i ng t he ‘u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p li c a t io n ’ in q u ir ys h o u ld a s k w h e t h e rth e s t a t e c o u r t ’s
a p p lic a tio n o f c le a r lye s ta b lis h e dfe d e r a l la w w a s o b je c tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le .” Wi l l i am s v. T

aylor , 5 2 9 U .S

. 3 6 2 , 4 0 9 (20 0 0 ). O n a pp eal , Bel lc o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n a pplyi ng t he h a rm les s e rr o r s ta n d a rd of B rec h tv. A brah am son , 5 0 7 U .S

. 6 1 9 , 6 3 7 -3 8 (19 9 3 ), to h i s c l ai m of

t r i alc our ter r or ; he m ai nt ai ns t hatdepr ivat i on o f t he r i ghtto t e s t i f y s ho ul d c o ns t i t ut e a s t r uc t ur ale r r o r . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a ppl i c at i o n o f t he harm l e s s e r r o r s t a nd a r d i s no t c o nt r a r y t o a nd d o e s no t c o ns t i t ut e a n
u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f c le a r lye s ta b lis h e dfe d e r a l la w . S ee Su l l i van v. Loui s i ana , 50 8 U

. S

. 27 5 , 2 7 7 -82 (19 9 3 ). B ellalso con ten d s th a t he i s en ti tl ed to rel i ef un der t h e ha rm l ess errorst an da rd becau se t h e evi den ce presen t e d agai n st h i m w as sl i gh tan d becau se hi s proposed tr i alt est i m on y w ou l d h ave establ i shed h i s i n n ocence. H e ha s not est ab li sh e d tha tt h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s er ror i n not preservi n g h i s ri gh tto test i f y h ad a “substan t i ala n d i nj u ri ou s ef fector i n f

l u en ce i n de term i n i n g th e j u ry ’ s ve rd i ct. ” Bre c ht , 507 U

. S. at637. B el l al so as se r t s t hat hi s t r i al c ounse l r ender ed i nef fec t ive as si st ance by fai l i n g t o cal lhi m t o t est i f y. H e ha s not dem on st rat ed that anyerr or by coun sel

w as s o s e r i o us a s t o “ r e nde r [] t he r e s ul to f t he t r i alunr e l i ab l e ort he pr o c e e di ng fun d a m en tall y u n fai r. ” L o ck h a rt v
. Fre tw ell , 5 0 6 U .S

. 3 6 4 , 3 7 2 (19 9 3 ). C on seq u en tl y, th e j u d gm en t of th e dist ri ct cou rt d en yin g B ell h a b ea s reli ef is AF F I RMED.