Semien v. Clerk of Court ( 1996 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-30158
Summary Calendar
__________________
GEORGE PROBST,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
C. MARTIN LENSING, WARDEN
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana
(94-2608-A)
______________________________________________
September 5, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Probst, #304494, seeks relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, from his conviction of forcible rape. His argument that
there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction is
nothing more than a challenge to the jury’s credibility
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
determinations and the weight given to adverse evidence. These are
factual matters to which the presumption of correctness of
§ 2254(d) applies, since Probst has failed to establish the
applicability of any of the exceptions to the presumption. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) through (8); Knox v. Butler, 884 F.2d 849, 851
(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1828 (1990). The district
court did not err in denying relief on this claim.
Nor did the district court err in finding that the
prosecutorial remarks during closing arguments did not violate
Probst’s due process rights. Even assuming a violation of Doyle v.
Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), it was harmless error under the standard
of review set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993).
AFFIRMED.
2