_____________ No. 95-4040SI

_____________ Kenneth E. Johns, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Thomas Hundley, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: September 12, 1996 Filed: September 19, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
After K enneth E. Johns was convicted of felony escape, the Iow a Suprem e Court rejected Johns's contention that he had committed onl y misdemeanor escape. Johns then brought this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action for hab eas relief, asserting insufficiency of the evidence and lack of fai r warn ing that his escape was felonious. The district court dismisse d Johns's petition. We affirm.
Johns was confined ina fenced medium-security facility at the Iowa State Penitentiary (I SP), and he worked in the prison industries building outside the fenced enclosure but within the ISP complex. At work, Johns was supervised by pri son industries staff and was watched by armed prison guards in a guard tower. If Johns had been seen trying to leave the ISP complex, prison offic ials would have forcibly stopped him. Johns carried out his planned escape by walking away from the prison industries building , getting

### -2-

into his girlfriend's waiting car, and riding of f with her. He was caught four days later in another state.
Johns did not raise his no-fair-warning claim in state court. W e need not pursue the q uestion of exhaustion, however, because the claim is meritless. Where that is so, we may rule on the merits at once. Granberr y v. Gre er , 481 U.S. 129, 131, 135 (1987); Thompson v. Missouri Bd. o f Parole , 929 F.2d 396, 398 (8th Cir. 1991). Johns claims the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in State v. Breitbach , 488 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 1992) , violated his right to due process by unforeseeably expanding the scope of Iowa's felony-escape statute. See Bouie v. City of Columbia , 378 U.S. 347 , 352 (1964). As the district court pointed out to Johns, Breitbach wa s decided s ix months before he escaped. Thus, Johns had fair warning hi s escape would be felonious. Relying on Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 (1979), Johns argues hi s convic tion violates due process because it is based on insufficien t evidence. Johns's reliance on Jacksonis mispla ced. In truth, Johns asks this court to override the Iowa Supreme Court's application, in its ruling on Johns's direct appeal, of Iowa's felony-escap e statute. This we cannot do. "A federal court may not re-examine a state court's interpretation an d application of state law." Schleeper v. Groose , 36 F.3d 735, 737 (8th Cir
. 1994). Applying Breitbach and other relevant precedent to Johns' s situation, the Iowa Supreme Court held that Johns's flight from the IS P prison industries building was a felony escape under Iowa law. State v. Johns , No. 235/93-816, slip op. at 3 (Iowa Aug. 8, 1994). The Iowa Suprem e Court's understanding of Iowa law binds Johns, and binds us as well. See Bates v. McCaughtry , 934 F.2d 99, 102-03 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 502 U.S . 915 (1991).
We thus affirm the district court.

### -3- A true copy.

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