Moreover, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana have all indicated that Melinie (insofar as it holds that sentencing error cannot form the basis for post-conviction relief) is an adequate and independent bar to federal habeas review of sentencing claims. Compare Hull v. Stalder, 234 F.3d 706 (5th Cir.2000) (unpublished); Rhymes v. Warden, 2005 WL 2123691 (W.D.La.2005); Tran v. Cain, 2006 WL 1627812 (W.D.La.2006); Williams v. Miller, 2006 WL 2087867 (E.D.La.2006); Green v. State, 1998 WL 259970 (E.D.La.), Scott v. Cain, 1998 WL 273116 (E.D.La.); see also Pedelahore v. Tanner, 2012 WL 4970684 (E.D. La. 2012) and Warfield v. Warden, L.S.P., 2012 WL 3067604 (W.D. La. 2012) and the cases cited therein.

However, Petitioner's complaint is being summarily dismissed not because of his failure to exhaust, but because his claims are procedurally defaulted or plainly without merit. Under these circumstances a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See, e.g., Tran v. Cain, 2006 WL 1627812, *8 *13 (W.D. La. 2006) (summarily dismissing with prejudice where claims were procedurally barred or plainly without merit). Because Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted or plainly without merit, Petitioner's motion for dismissal without prejudice will be denied.