IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50347
Summary Calendar
__________________
DOYLE LEE HITT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-94-CA-57
- - - - - - - - - -
November 17, 1995
Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that he was
denied due process because the trial judge had not completed a
training program regarding child abuse cases; that the child-
victim, Brian Hitt, was not competent to testify; that he was
*
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should not be published.
No. 95-50347
-2-
denied his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because the
prosecutor blocked his view of Brian during direct examination;
that he was denied due process because Helen Bevers was permitted
to testify although she was not on the prosecution's witness
list; that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction; that he was denied due process because the jury
charge did not track the indictment; that the prosecutor made
improper arguments during his closing argument; that he was
improperly denied the opportunity to request probation; that he
was improperly denied an opportunity to present the testimony of
his expert witness; that Brady material was withheld; and that
the prosecution failed to comply with the plea agreement. We
have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially
the reasons given by the district court. Hitt v. Scott, No. W-
94-CA-057 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 1995).
AFFIRMED.