F.Supp.2d at 827. “In an appeal of the district court’s denial of habeas relief, this court reviews the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, applying the same standard of review that the district court applied to the state court decision.” Roberts v. Thaler, 681 F.3d 597, 603-04 (5th Cir.2012) (citations omitted). We review a district court’s denial of relief under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. See Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir.2011). Butler also claims that the trial judge provided an insufficient remedy for a Bat-son violation that occurred during the jury selection for his capital trial. On direct appeal, the TCCA rejected this claim on the merits. See generally Butler, 872 5.W.2d at 233 (<HOLDING>). To obtain habeas relief on his Batson claim,
holding that trial court did not commit reversible error in charging jury that reasonable certainty was the proper standard for establishing the value of plaintiffs lost earnings and that some evidence was all that was required in this matter holding that a district court did not commit reversible error because it attached great weight to one factor holding that trial court did not commit reversible error when it submitted admissibility of evidence question to jury because the trial court had independently decided the question holding the trial judge did not commit reversible error through the chosen method of remedying the batson violation holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law