Case Name: Gayland BRADFORD, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-17
Citations: 366 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 08-70030
Parties: Gayland BRADFORD, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
Gayland BRADFORD, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-70030
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2010.
Franklyn Ray Mickelsen, Jr., Broden & Mickelsen, Victor Joseph Sasso, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Stephen M. Hoffman, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Bradford has failed to make a sub stantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right — for essentially the reasons stated by the district court concerning failure to exhaust claims one through three, and its further reasons concerning the other claims. The requests for certificates of appealability are DENIED. Under current precedent in this circuit, the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not exhausted in the state court and would be barred in a successive state petition under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 11.071 § 5(a) and the law remains that ineffective habeas counsel will not excuse a failure to exhaust, as petitioner concedes.
. C.f. Ruiz v. Quartennan, 504 F.3d 523 (5th Cir.2007).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.