Court Opinion

ID: 44690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:26:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:17.960325
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit
                                                                         F I L E D
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                          July 17, 2006
                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                           _____________________                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                            Clerk
                                No. 04-30648
                           _____________________

LIONEL E. LEWIS,

                                                   Petitioner - Appellant,

                                   versus

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

                                           Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                       USDC No. 2:03-CV-1067
_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      This appeal of the District Court’s denial of habeas corpus

was   limited   to   the   issue   of    whether    the    state      prosecutor

substantially    interfered     with    petitioner’s      right     to    call     a

confidential informant as a defense witness.           Petitioner failed to

present this claim properly to the state court. Failure to exhaust

state remedies bars federal habeas relief.           Whitehead v. Johnson,

157 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 1998).        Therefore, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.