UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 96-10511
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
KENNETH LERON SATTERWHITE,
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 Northern District of Texas
(4:95-CV-183-Y)
______________________________________________________
November 19, 1996
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:1
Texas prisoner Kenneth Satterwhite, #393238, filing pro se,
appeals from the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as an
abuse of writ. Satterwhite contends that the administration of
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases
on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs from April 1985 to May 1990
constitutes cause for his failure to raise defective-indictment and
ineffective-assistance contentions in an earlier petition. He also
contends that his counsel's ineffective assistance regarding the
defective indictment constitutes cause.
Assuming without deciding that (1) the certificate of probable
cause issued by the district court served as a certificate of
appealability required for appeals under the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), effective April 24, 1996, and
(2) that the district court had the authority to issue such a
certificate of appealability, we address the merits of
Satterwhite's appeal. We have examined the record and the briefs
of the parties and find no nonfrivolous issues. We reject
Satterwhite's contention that the administration of drugs
constituted cause for the reasons relied on by the district court.
In addition, we find his ineffective assistance of counsel claim
barred; he raised it in an earlier petition and may not raise it
again in a subsequent petition. McDonald v. Estelle, 590 F.2d 153,
155 (5th Cir. 1979). Moreover, his counsel's actions did not
prevent Satterwhite from raising claims in his previous federal
habeas petitions.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2