Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011) (quoting Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 60-61 (2009)). Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (refusing to examine alleged errors in the application of the procedural bar to applications for postconviction relief in Louisiana Code of Criminal procedure article 930.3) (quoting Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 184 (5th Cir. 1999)).

adequate to bar federal review of Funes's claims. Hull v. Stalder, 234 F.3d 706, 2000 WL 1598016, at *1 (5th Cir. Sep. 28, 2000) (Table, Text in Westlaw) (recognizing Article 930.3 to be independent and adequate state grounds); Bennett v. Whitley, 41 F.3d 1581 (5th Cir. 1994) (Article 930.4 is an independent and adequate state procedural rule); Williams v. Vannoy, No. 14-1914, 2015 WL 3505116, at *6-7 (E.D. La. June 3, 2015) (Feldman, J.) (order adopting report) (Art. 930.3 is independent and adequate state procedural bar); Johnson v. Cain, No. 12-0621, 2012 WL 5363327, at *4 (E.D. La. Oct. 30, 2012) (Lemelle, J.) (Article 930.4(C) is independent and adequate state bar); Perez v. Cain, No. 12-1331, 2012 WL 4815611, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 10, 2012) (Barbier, J.) (same); Thomas v. Cain, No. 11-2103, 2012 WL 1885088, at *4 (E.D. La. May 23, 2012) (Lemelle, J.) (same re Article 930.4(B)); Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (Vance, J.) (Art. 930.3 independent and adequate to bar ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

It is not within the federal court's province to disagree with the application of the bar; it is only to determine its adequacy. Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (addressing La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.3).

Narvaiz v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 688, 695 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) and Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)). Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (Vance, J.). See e.g., Davis v. Johnson, No. 00CV684-Y, 2001 WL 611164, at *4 & n.10 (N.D. Tex. May 30, 2001); Johnson v. Lensing, No. 99-0005, 1999 WL 562728, at *4 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2011); Poree v. Cain, No. 971546, 1999 WL 518843, at *4 (E.D. La. Jul. 20, 1999).

For this reason, it is not within the federal court's province to disagree with the application of the bar; it is only to determine its adequacy. Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (Vance, J.) (addressing La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.3). Because Luckey's petition is untimely, the Court need not determine whether the state courts' reasoning was independent and adequate to bar review of Luckey's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.

For this reason, it is not within the federal court's province to disagree with the application of the bar; it is only to determine its adequacy. Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (Vance, J.) (addressing La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.3).

Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011) (quoting Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 60-61 (2009)).Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (quoting Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 184 (5th Cir.1999)) (refusing to examine alleged errors in the application of the procedural bar to applications for postconviction relief in Louisiana Code of Criminal procedure article 930.3).

Narvaiz v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 688, 695 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)).Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at * 1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (Vance, J.).See e.g., Davis v. Johnson, No. 00CV684, 2001 WL 611164, at *4 & n.10 (N.D. Tex. May 30, 2001); Johnson v. Lensing, No. 99-0005, 1999 WL 562728, at *4 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2011); Poree v. Cain, No. 97-1546, 1999 WL 518843, at *4 (E.D. La. Jul. 20, 1999).

Narvaiz v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 688, 695 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) and Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)). Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (Vance, J.). See e.g., Davis v. Johnson, No. 00CV684-Y, 2001 WL 611164, at *4 & n.10 (N.D. Tex. May 30, 2001); Johnson v. Lensing, No. 99-0005, 1999 WL 562728, at *4 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2011); Poree v. Cain, No. 97-1546, 1999 WL 518843, at *4 (E.D. La. Jul. 20, 1999).

For this reason, it is not within the federal court's province to disagree with the application of the bar; it is only to determine its adequacy. Lee v. Cain, No. 03-2626, 2004 WL 2984274, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2004) (Vance, J.) (addressing La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.3). In this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court relied on La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.3 and its related ruling in State ex rel. Melinie to bar review of Lee's sentencing claim.