783 (1982) (“The federal courts apply a plain-error rule for direct review of federal convictions. Federal habeas challenges to state convictions, however, entail greater finality problems and special comity concerns. We remain convinced that the burden of justifying federal habeas relief for state prisoners is greater than the showing required to establish plain error on direct appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Scott v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 854, 872 n. 6 (6th Cir.2000) (rejecting the argument that a procedurally defaulted claim should be reviewed for plain error on habeas review). 16 . Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). 17 . Id. at 730, 111 S.Ct. 2546. 18 . See Turner v. Quarterman, 481 F.3d 292, 301 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 19 . Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct.
recognizing this texas rule holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review holding that rule 322a is an adequate and independent procedural bar holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims holding that the texas contemporaneous objection rule is an adequate procedural bar quoting dowthitt v johnson 230 f3d 733 752 5th cir2000