Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10949/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10949-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Thaw
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10949

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STANLEY THAW,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-2920

USDC No. 3:12-CR-261-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stanley Thaw, federal prisoner # 45050-177, moves for a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as 

time barred. In his § 2255 motion, Thaw challenged his conviction for 

conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and sentence of 60 months of 

imprisonment on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10949 Document: 00513446009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2016
No. 15-10949

2

Reasonable jurists would find that the district court erred in sua sponte 

dismissing Thaw’s § 2255 motion as time barred without giving the parties 

notice and an opportunity to present their positions on the issues of timeliness 

and equitable tolling. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209-10 (2006); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Additionally, “the district court 

pleadings, the record, and the COA application demonstrate that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether the petitioner has made a valid claim of a

constitutional deprivation.” Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 

2004).

Accordingly, Thaw’s motion for a COA is GRANTED; his motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his § 2255 motion as untimely is VACATED; and the matter is 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with Day. See Whitehead v. 

Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).

 Case: 15-10949 Document: 00513446009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2016