Court Opinion

ID: 11005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 05:58:56+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:04.865650
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 96-10110
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

ROZELL WILLIAMS,

                                               Petitioner-Appellant,

                              versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Institutional Division,

                                               Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Northern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 4:95-CV-311-A
_________________________________________________________________

                         December 3, 1996
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     We have considered the claims of the petitioner-appellant.

Our review of the record and the papers before us make it clear

that the district court did not err in concluding that Williams has

failed to demonstrate that his plea of guilty was involuntary.

     *
      Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
Furthermore, none of the allegations relating to his counsel

ultimately demonstrate deficiency and, thus, Williams has failed to

to raise a cognizable constitutional claim of ineffective counsel.

Finally, Williams’s argument that he was denied due process because

the state failed to provide favorable evidence consisting of the

results of the blood test, the polygraph test, and the firearm’s

test is not properly before this court, because it was not raised

in the court below.   In any event, this claim presents no basis

upon which to grant habeas relief to Williams.

     Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing

Williams’s complaint is

                                                 A F F I R M E D.1

     1
      Williams’s motions for an investigator, for exhibits, etc.,
and of objection to transcripts, etc., are DENIED.

                               -2-