IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10317 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL E. BEARD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (98-CV-78) --------------------

November 4, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Michael E. Beard appeals from the

judgment of the district court denying his application for habeas

corpus relief under

. Petitioner was convicted by

a court-martial of committing sodomy with two children in violation

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,

. He

was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 10 years’ confinement,

and reduction in rank to E-1. He appealed his conviction and

sentence to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals,

which affirmed the findings and sentence of the court-martial. He

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. sought review before the United States Court of Appeals for the

Armed Forces, which denied review without opinion. United States

v. Beard,

(C.A.A.F. 1997).

Military court-martial convictions are subject to collateral

review only if it is asserted that the court-martial lacked

jurisdiction, or substantial constitutional rights have been

violated, or other exceptional circumstances are present. Calley

v. Callaway,

(5th Cir. 1975) (en banc). This

court’s review of factual issues is limited to determining whether

the military has fully and fairly considered contested factual

issues. Calley,

.

Although couched in terms of a violation of due process,

petitioner’s arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence

and his allegation that the victims’ testimony was “tainted” raise

disputed factual issues that were fully and fairly considered by

the military court. Therefore, the district court properly denied

federal habeas relief. See

Petitioner’s claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel presents a mixed question of law and

fact that hinges on resolution of disputed factual issues. See

Strickland v. Washington,

(1984). Because these

issues were fully and fairly considered by the military court, the

district court did not err in denying habeas relief. Calley,

. Petitioner has failed to show any prejudice with

respect to his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel, since the issues that counsel are alleged to have failed

to raise were considered by the military court. See Strickland,

2

. Finally, although petitioner argues that the

military appellate court applied an incorrect standard of review,

at base this argument amounts to a reassertion of his

insufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, and the district court did

not err in denying habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.

3