Filed: Apr. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-30665 Conference Calendar RONALD DUBROC, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 96-CV-2129-A - - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Dubroc, state prisoner # 129257, appeals the denial of his habeas
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-30665 Conference Calendar RONALD DUBROC, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 96-CV-2129-A - - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Dubroc, state prisoner # 129257, appeals the denial of his habeas p..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30665
Conference Calendar
RONALD DUBROC,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA
STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 96-CV-2129-A
- - - - - - - - - -
April 10, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Dubroc, state prisoner # 129257, appeals the denial
of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel which
rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Dubroc has failed to
establish that the state court’s decision was “an unreasonable
application of clearly established Federal law” or “an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No.
-2-
evidence.” § 2254(d). The district court’s denial of relief is
AFFIRMED.