IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-11033
Summary Calendar
KEVIN HUTCHINGS
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
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
USDC No. 2:97-CV-185
--------------------
May 17, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kevin Hutchings appeals the dismissal of his petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hutchings
contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due
to his attorney’s waiver of a Fourth Amendment claim arising out
of a traffic stop.
Although we agree that counsel’s performance was deficient,
we do not agree that Hutchings has made the requisite showing of
prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685-88
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-11033
-2-
(1984). The state court reasonably could have concluded that the
officers learned that Mills did not have a valid license during
the scope of the initial detention for a traffic stop. See,
e.g., United States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234, 240 (5th Cir. 2000);
United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193, 198 (5th Cir. 1999).
Further, the state reasonably could have concluded that
Hutchings’s consent to search the car included the search of the
spare tire. See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 249, 251
(1991); United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir.
1995). Under the deferential standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),
we cannot say that the rejection of Hutchings’s ineffective-
assistance claim was contrary to or involved an unreasonable
application of federal law. The judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.