United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

                                   ___________

                                   No. 96-2340
                                   ___________

Allen Langley,                          *
                                        *
             Appellant,                 *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Southern District of Iowa.
State of Iowa,                          *
                                        *    [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellee.                  *
                                   ___________

                           Submitted: September 23, 1997
                               Filed: October 8, 1997
                                   ___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.


       Allen Langley, an Iowa prisoner, appeals the district court&s1 grant of summary
judgment against him in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. Langley challenges the district
court&s determination that there exists no cause to excuse his procedural default.
Specifically, Langley claims that he mailed his habeas petition--which he labeled a
“Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State


      1
        The Honorable Donald E. O&Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
Custody, United States District Court”--to the state court, that the state court mailed
it to the federal district court rather than filing it as a state post-conviction motion, and
that the state court&s conduct should excuse his procedural default.

       After de novo review of the record, we agree that Langley&s claims are barred
from habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. See Lamp v. Iowa, No. 96-2946, slip op. at 5-7 (8th Cir. Aug.
13, 1997). Although sufficient interference by the State may constitute cause in some
circumstances, see Joubert v. Hopkins, 

, 1242 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(1996), we conclude this case does not present such a circumstance.

       Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

       A true copy.

              Attest:

                      CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                            -2-