071984P.pdf   08/17/2009  Marcel Williams  v.  Larry Norris
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  07-1984
                          and No:  07-2115
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Prisoner case - habeas. The district court erred in granting habeas relief
   on the ground that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the
   penalty phase of Williams' capital murder case; Williams failed to
   present any evidence at the state court post-conviction proceeding as to
   what mitigating evidence counsel had failed to introduce or how it would
   have changed the outcome of the case, and the district court erred in
   permitting him to produce this evidence at his federal hearing on his
   habeas claim; based on the state court record, the state courts' finding of
   no prejudice was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of the
   Strickland standard; turning to Williams' cross-appeal on issues the
   district court rejected, the district court did not err in finding the state
   courts made reasonable determinations of the facts in light of the
   evidence presented in the state court in rejecting Williams' Batson
   claims; Williams failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the
   trial court's finding that a juror was not actually biased was
   constitutionally infirm; district court did not err in finding state courts
   properly analyzed and rejected Williams' challenges to admission of a
   partially inculpatory statement; challenge to constitutionality of the
   Arkansas Death Penalty statutory framework was foreclosed by the
   court's decision in Singleton v. Lockhart, 962 F.2d 1315 (8th Cir. 1992);
   district court did not err in finding challenge to use of prior felony
   committed as a juvenile was procedurally barred; challenge to use of
   pecuniary gain aggravator is foreclosed by this court's precedents; state
   courts did not unreasonably interpret or apply federal precedents when
   they found the use of the "especially cruel or depraved"aggravator was
   supported by the evidence and was not unconstitutionally vague or
   overbroad.