FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 08, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 78 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -0 00 55 -WCO MAHMOUD HAFEZ, Pet it io ne r - App el la nt ,

ve rs us WARDEN DAVID FRAZIER, Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 8, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, BARKETT andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Mah m ou d Haf ez, a Geo rg iapri so ne r, ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l of hi s p ro se 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 habe as co rp us pe ti ti on forfai lu re t o e xh au sthi s st at e ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we v acat e an d
rem an d fo r ad di ti on al pro ceed in gs . Hafez fil eda st at e h ab eas pe ti ti on , and-- fo ll owi ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng he ldon 18 Feb ru ary 20 09 -- th e st at e co urt s ta te d t ha t i t p lann edto de ny the pe ti ti on . Hafez t he n fi le d h is fed eral habe as co rp us pe ti ti on , pu rs ua ntto sec ti on 22 54 , on 8 Ap ril 20 09 . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he fed eral habe as pe ti ti on as pr oc edur al ly barre d, co nc lu di ng th atHafez f ai le d t o e xh au sthi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b ecau se he ha d n otap pl ie d fo r a certi fic at e o f pr ob ab le cau se (“ CPC” ) fro m th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt. W e g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y 1 (“ COA”) as to th e fo ll owi ng is su e: Whe th er Ga. Sup. Ct . R. 40 , as a m en de d, h as an y effe cton th is Co urt’s h ol di ng in Po pe v. Ri ch , 35 8 F .3d85 2, 8 54 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ), th ata Geo rg iapri so ne r m us t fi le anap pl ic at io n fo r a certi fic at e o f pr ob ab le cau se with t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt ch al le ng in g the de ni al of h is st at e h ab eas pe ti ti on in ord er t o e xh au sthi s s ta te rem ed ie s an d t he reb y

av oi d apro cedur al de fau ltan d, i f so , whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erredby find in g t ha t Haf ez’s cl ai m s wer e un ex haus te d.

In doing so, the district court found that the state habe as cor pus court issued a f

inal order 1 denying H afe z’s petition on 18 Februa ry 2009, and the 30- day

period for

filing a n application for a CPC ex pired on 20 March 2009. 2On 2 2 S ep te m be r 20 10 -- s ho rtl y

be fo re Hafe z fi le d h is op en in g b rie f in th is ap pe al -- th e st at e h ab eas co urt i ss ue d afin al ord er d en y in g h is st at e h ab eas pe ti ti on . Hafez fi le d ati m el y ap pl ic at io n fo r a CPC with t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt, wh ic h was de ni ed
.

“ Alt ho ug h we wi ll no t d eci de an y is su e n otsp eci fie d i n t he COA, we wil l
co ns tru e th e is su e sp eci fic at io n i n l ig htof t he pl ead in gs an d o th er p art s o f th e reco rd .” Mu rray v. Uni te d S ta te s, 1 45 F.3d12 49 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). W e wil l readth e COA to en co m

pa ss pro cedur al is su es th atm us t b e res ol ve d b efo re we ca n reac h the un de rlyin g c la im . See Mc Co y v. Un it edSta te s, 2 66 F.3d12 45 , 12 48 n.2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
. The is su e sp eci fie d i n t he COA ass um edth atHafez f ai le d t o fi le pro pe rly an ap pl ic at io n fo r a CPC with t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt. Thu s, b efo re we ca n ad dr es s t he un de rlyin g i ss ue setforthin th e COA, we m us t fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er

3th atass um

pt io n was co rrec t -- an d c on st ru e th e COA to en co m pa ss th atis su e. 2 See i d. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a h ab eas pe ti ti on de no vo , andit s fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r. Nels on v. Sc ho fel d, 3 71 F.3d76 8, 7 69 -7 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). A fin di ng is cle arl y erro ne ou s wh en , con si de rin g a ll th e ev id en ce, we are “ le ft wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” And ers onv. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty, 10 5 S .Ct. 1 50 4, 1 51 1 (1 98 5)
. Res po nd en t co nc ed es -- an d t he reco rdsh ows -- th atth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erre d wh enitco nc lu de d t ha t t he st at e h ab eas co urt en te reda fi na l o rd er de nyin g Haf

ez’s s ta te habe as pe ti ti on an d t ha t t he ti m e fo r fi li ng anap pl ic at io n fo r a CPC ex pi red , bef

or e Hafez fil edhi s s ect io n 2 25 4 p et it io n. We are co nv in ced th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d, an d we v acat e an d re m an d fo r ad di ti on al pr oc eed in gs . VACATED AN D REMANDED. On appe al, Haf

ez also argues that (1) he is not require d to appea l the denial of his state 2 habea s petition to ex haust his state reme dies bec ause G a. Sup. Ct. R. 40 s uperse des our de cision in Pope; and, in the alternative (2) the state habe as cour t’s extraordinary

delay in issuing its final order constitutes good c ause to e x cuse him fr om Pope’s exhaustion requirements. Healso contends that we should certify the followingquestion to the Georg ia Supreme Court: “Under Geor g ia law, is re view by the Georg ia Supreme Court followingthe denial of a state ha beas petition an ‘ava ilable’ avenue of revie w for the purposes of de terminingwhether a litiga nt has proper ly exhausted his state court re medies? ” B eca use Ha fez has filed a

timely application for CPC with the Geor g ia Supreme Court a nd that application has be en denie d, these issues ar e dismiss ed as moot. See Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 4