IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 99-50818
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________


MICHAEL DWAYNE SUROVIK,


                                               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
                Western District of Texas, Dallas
                       USDC No. W-98-CV-365
_________________________________________________________________
                         December 20, 2000
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Michael Dwayne Surovik (Texas prisoner #743897) appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.        He

challenges the district court’s determination that his Doyle1 claim

was procedurally barred based on state court findings that he had

defaulted the claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal.


     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
     1
      Doyle v. Ohio, 

(1976).
Surovik was previously granted a certificate of appealability on

the   issue   whether   Texas     strictly   and    regularly    applies      this

particular procedural bar.

       After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we

hold that Surovik has failed to rebut the presumption that this

particular procedural bar is strictly and regularly applied in

Texas.    See Pitts v. Anderson, 

, 279 (5th Cir. 1997).

He has not pointed to a single case where a Texas court has failed

to    apply   this   particular    procedural      bar   to   claims   that    are

“identical or similar” to his Doyle claim.           See Stokes v. Anderson,

, 860-61 (5th Cir. 1997).              Accordingly, the district

court’s judgment is

                                                              A F F I R M E D.




                                       2