Opinion ID: 667348
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive Fifth Amendment Violation

Text: 7 Samson failed to raise his substantive claim concerning the prosecutor's remarks on the direct appeal of his conviction. The Virginia courts would not consider this claim in a habeas petition because it was not raised on direct appeal, Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1985), and a federal court will not review a habeas claim that has not been raised at the state level. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). Accordingly, the claim cannot be considered by this Court. 8 Samson argues that he effectively raised the substantive Fifth Amendment claim in his original state habeas petition. His federal habeas petition, however, challenges the prosecutor's comments only in the context of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This Court has recently stated that habeas claims must be raised in the District Court to be considered on appeal. Spencer v. Murray, 5 F.3d 758, 762 (4th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 62 U.S.L.W. 3574 (U.S. Feb. 28, 1994). Assuming, arguendo, that the state petition fairly raised the claim, Samson's failure to raise this issue in the District Court bars consideration of the claim on appeal.