Rahim v. Dretke ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                February 23, 2005
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    No. 04-10331                          Clerk
    Summary Calendar
    ABDEL MOHAMAD RAHIM,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
    JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:01-CV-817-R
    --------------------
    Before   WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Petitioner-Appellant Abdel Mohamad Rahim appeals the district
    court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his
    1996 conviction for capital murder.        Rahim contends that the
    district court erred when it denied him an evidentiary hearing and
    presumed the state habeas judge’s factual findings to be correct.
    Rahim has not shown that the district court erred in applying the
    presumption of correctness.    See Valdez v. Cockrell, 
    274 F.3d 941
    ,
    949-51    (5th Cir. 2001).    As the district court properly applied
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    a presumption of correctness to the state habeas judge’s factual
    findings, Rahim has failed to show that the district court abused
    its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.               Murphy v.
    Johnson, 
    205 F.3d 809
    , 815 (5th Cir. 2000); McDonald v. Johnson,
    
    139 F.3d 1056
    , 1059-60 (5th Cir. 1998).
    Rahim also contends that the state habeas judge’s factual
    findings were an unreasonable determination of the facts in light
    of the evidence presented.     Rahim has failed to show that the
    district court erred in concluding that the state habeas judge’s
    factual findings based on his credibility determinations were
    reasonable in light of the evidence presented.
    Last,   Rahim   argues   that       the   state   appellate     court’s
    determination that the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s
    confession was harmless error was an unreasonable application of
    clearly established Supreme Court precedent.           Rahim has failed to
    show that the district court erred in concluding that the state
    appellate court’s analysis of the evidence and application of the
    Supreme Court’s harmless error standard was objectively reasonable.
    Chapman v. California, 
    386 U.S. 18
    , 24 (1967).              Moreover, the
    admission of the     confession did not have a substantial and
    injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict.               Brecht v.
    Abrahamson, 
    507 U.S. 619
    , 637 (1993). The judgment of the district
    court is, in all respects,
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-10331

Judges: Wiener, Benavides, Stewart

Filed Date: 2/23/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024