¶111 Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator has failed to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 680 So.2d 1189. Moreover, relator’s application is repetitive pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.
¶2Relator has now fled and fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in the state courts. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the fling of a second or successive application only under the -narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, -the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive-.filings mandatory.. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P.-art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the fling of a successive ^application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The *559District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam,