11 Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In addition, relator’s sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930,3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. Relator’s remaining claims are repetitive and/or unsupported. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the Commissioner’s Recommendation which the District Court endorsed in its order denying relator’s application.
Relator has now fully litigated his second application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated |⅞⅛ accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions autho*871rizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
1 .^Attachment
[[Image here]]
*872[[Image here]]
*873[[Image here]]
*874[[Image here]]
*875[[Image here]]
*876[[Image here]]
*877[[Image here]]
*878[[Image here]]