In his pro se habeas petition in the Middle District of Florida, petitioner Averil Medaries challenged his state conviction on three grounds. Medaries claimed that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated in that the state trial court allowed to be used against him evidence from a prior trial in which he was acquitted. He also maintained that his Fourth Amendment rights were infringed by the trial court’s refusal to suppress a certain conversation. Finally, Medaries contended that his Sixth Amendment rights were denied because his trial counsel 1 failed to object to certain allegedly prejudicial prosecutorial remarks. Adopting the report of the United States Magistrate, the District Court dismissed Medar-ies’s petition for failure to exhaust state remedies on his Sixth Amendment claim. 2 In light of our recent decision in Galtieri v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1978, 582 F.2d 348 (en banc), we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Medaries’s petition. Before a federal habeas court may consider Medaries’s petition, Medaries must seek post-conviction review of his Sixth Amendment claim in the Florida trial court that initially sentenced him. 3 See Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.850.

DISMISSAL AFFIRMED.