* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31198 Summary Calendar ERIN HUNTER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-770-R January 14, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Erin Hunter, Louisiana prisoner # 111799, appeals the district court§ 2254 habeas corpus petition. A judge on this court granted Hunter a certificate of appealability (COA) on two issues: (1) whether the state withheld Vanessa CauseyÂ’s grand jury testimony from Hunter in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and (2) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not adequately cross-examining Cau sey and not introducing evidence necessary to impeach Causey.

Hunter presents argument on several other issues. Because COA was not granted o n these issues, we may not consider them. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 2253; see also Lackey v. Johnso n , 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). The s tate court adjudicated the B rady issue on its merits.

See State v. Hunter , 648 So. 2d 1025, 1033-34 (La. Ct. App. 1994).

Accordingly, Hunter can receive relief on this claim only by showing that the state court acted objectively unreason ably in denying this claim. S ee Nobles v. Johnson , 127 F.3d 409, 416 (5th Cir. 1997); Trevino v. Johnson , 168 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1056 (1999); Orman v. Cain , 228 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 2000). Hunter has not made this showing. The state court also adjudicated on the merits the ineffective-assistance issue as to HunterÂ’s allegations regarding counselÂ’s not using portions of the initial police report to impeach Causey. S ee Hunter , 648 So. 2d at 1030-31. Thus, as with his Brady issue, Hunter can receive relief on this issue only if he can show that the state cour t acted objectively unreasonably in denying this claim. See Bryant v. Scott , 28 F.3d 1411, 1414 (5th Cir. 1994); Nobles , 127 F.3d at 416; Orman , 228 F.3d at 621. Also as with his Brady issue, Hunter had not made the requisite showing of objective unreasonableness in relation to this ineffectiveassistance claim.

Hunter also argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not introducing other documents and using them to cross-examine Causey. This claim was not considered by the state court and thus receives d e novo review. S ee Nobles , 127 F.3d at 416. Hunter has not shown that counselÂ’s cross-examination of Causey was de ficient or that this cross-examination prejudiced HunterÂ’s defense. S trickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Hunter has not shown that he is entitled to relief on his Brady or ineffective-assistance claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

No. 00-31198