¶3Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Dunklin Sullivan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred Walker, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
¶4Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
¶7This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying the petition of a Texas state prisoner for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
¶8Appellant is presently serving an 18-year sentence for possession of narcotics. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Green v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1970, 451 S.W.2d 893. As grounds for relief appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor made improper remarks during his closing argument. He also contended that evidence was introduced which was seized under an invalid search warrant. Finally, appellant contended that the prosecution circumvented the court’s pretrial order to produce the search warrant when it produced a warrant and affidavit different from the one used at the actual trial. Appellant alleged that the defense constructed around the warrant produced had to be abandoned, leaving him no time to study and defend against the warrant introduced.
¶9The record reveals that the last stated issue is presently under consideration in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, on the appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Article 11.07, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court has consistently required that state remedies be exhausted as to all issues raised in a federal habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Burroughs v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 454 F.2d 1165; Anderson v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 1303; Johnson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 385. Clearly, appellant’s state remedies have not been exhausted.
¶10Affirmed.