Case Name: Robert MELANCON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Kelly WARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-05
Citations: 372 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 08-30950
Parties: Robert MELANCON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Kelly WARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
Robert MELANCON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Kelly WARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-30950
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 5, 2010.
Laurie Anne White, Section A Orleans Criminal District Court, Autumn Alyeia Town, Law Office of Autumn Town, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Mary Ellen Hunley, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In August 1996, Robert Melancon, Louisiana prisoner # 371029, was convicted by jury verdict of aggravated rape of a male under the age of twelve and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He now appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application.
Melancon argues that he did not receive a fair trial because adverse pretrial publicity saturated the community from which the jury was drawn, thereby raising the presumption that he suffered prejudice from jury bias. To the extent that he argues that he also did not receive a fair trial due to prosecutorial animus, that argument is not cognizable because it was not encompassed by the district court's grant of a certificate of appealability. See Richardson v. Quarterman, 537 F.3d 466, 472 n. 2 (5th Cir.2008).
Melancon has failed to show that the state appellate court's resolution of this issue warrants relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See Busby v. Dretke, 359 F.3d 708, 713 (5th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.