Case Name: Robert James TENNARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-03
Citations: 317 F.3d 476
Docket Number: No. 00-20915
Parties: Robert James TENNARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 317
Pages: 476–477

Head Matter:
Robert James TENNARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 00-20915.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 3, 2003.
Mandy Welch, Burr & Welch, Houston, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Charles A. Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:
The Supreme Court of the United States, by order in Tennard v. Cockrell, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 70, 154 L.Ed.2d 4 (2002), granted appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded it to us for further consideration in light of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), which was decided after the issuance of our opinion in this case. In Atkins, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the application of the death penalty to mentally retarded persons. Tennard has never argued that the Eighth Amendment prohibits his execution. Instead, Tennard argued that the jury instructions did not provide a vehicle for giving mitigating effect to his evidence of mental retardation in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, because Tennard has not raised the Eighth Amendment claim addressed in Atkins, such a claim is not properly before us. Cf. Smith v. Cockrell, 311 F.3d 661, 684 (5th Cir.2002) (declining to address Atkins claim raised for the first time on appeal); Smith v. Bowersox, 311 F.3d 915, 923 (8th Cir.2002) (declining to address Atkins claim because petitioner did not raise an Eighth Amendment claim in his federal habeas petition).
Accordingly, we reinstate our panel opinion and AFFIRM the district court's judgment.
. Tennard v. Cockrell, 284 F.3d 591 (5th Cir.2002).