IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-60081
Summary Calendar
__________________
MICHAEL D. GRAHAM,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
RAYMOND ROBERTS, SUPERINTENDENT,
MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:94-CV-347-GR
----------------------
August 28, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Graham, a Mississippi prisoner, #73380, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his trial attorney was
ineffective for preventing him from testifying in his own behalf
and that he was deprived of his constitutional right to testify.
Graham’s claims are meritless because his proposed testimony
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-60081
-2-
would not have supported a “heat of passion” defense under
Mississippi law; he has not shown prejudice as to his
ineffective-assistance claim; he has not shown he was denied the
right to testify and, even assuming that such a denial occurred,
it was “harmless error.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984); Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 49-52 (1987);
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993); Graham v.
State, 582 So. 2d 1014, 1015-17 (Miss. 1991). Because the
district court was not required to resolve any disputed facts, no
evidentiary hearing was required. See Lavernia v. Lynaugh, 845
F.2d 493, 501 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.