hDenied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction, relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator’s application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails .to carry his burden-to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P, art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Moreover, his 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. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.
*1095Relator has now fully litigated several ■applications for post-conviction relief -in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.O. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a 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 |2successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in 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 authorizing 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.