### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30246 Summary Calendar

STANLEY STIRGUS, Petitioner-Appellant

v. HOWARD PRINCE, WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CV-374

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stanley Stirgus, Louisiana prisoner # 489480, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition , c hallenging his conviction and life sentence for second degree murder. We granted Stirgus a certifica te of appealability (COA) to determine whether Stirgus is procedurally barred from raising his claim concerning re-amendment of the indictment if the state habeas court erred in applying its procedural rules. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May31 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30246 Document: 00511873075 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2012No. 11-30246

Although the state court refused to consider Stirgus’s claim pursuant to

an independant and adequate state procedural bar, see Bagneris v. Cain , 254 F. App’x 351, 352 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), the district court refused to apply the bar after conc l u d i n g that the state court failed to comply with another procedural rule and instead considered and rejected the merit s o f S t irgus’s claim. We conclude that the district court erred in rejecting the procedural bar hence reaching the merits of Stirgus’s claim because, factua l l y a n d under Louisiana law, State of ex. Rel. Rice v. State , 749 So.2d 650 (La. 1999) (holding that language which “requires an inmate f ilin g an application for post-conviction relief to ‘explain why’ he may have ‘failed to raise [a particular] ground’ in earlier proceedings” satisfies the requirements of La. Code C r im. Proc. art. 9 3 0

. 4 ( F) ) , S tir gu s a d e quately was accorded the protec ti o n s u n d e r L o u i s i a n a C o d e of Criminal Procedure article 930.4. See Johnson v. Cain , 215 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that the district court erred in concluding that the state court improperly applied its proc e d u r a l rules); Walker v. Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary , 19 F.3 d 1 5 , 1 9 94 WL 93289, at *1 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (holding that it would be improper for a federal habeas court to second-guess the state court’s compliance with its procedural rules). Thus, absent a showing of 1 either cause and prejudice or a f u n d a m ental miscarriage of justice, the state court’s finding of procedural bar is conclusive. See Smith v. Johnson , 216 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 2000). Stirgus has not made the required showing. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Stirg u s ’ s § 2254 petition is AFFIRMED. See Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that this court may affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record).

In this cir cuit , unpub lis hed opi nions iss u e d bef ore Januar y 1, 1996, are pr ece dent

. 1 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .3. 2 Case: 11-30246 Document: 00511873075 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2012