Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41275 Su m m ar yC al endar

M OS ES GA L I NDO , Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant

v. N A T HA N I E L Q U A R T E R MA N , D I R E C T O R , T E XA S D E P A R T ME N T OF C R IM IN A L J U S T IC E , C O R R E C T IO N A L IN S T IT U T IO N S D IV IS IO N , R espon den t

- A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C V

- 56

B e fo r e B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * In 200 0, M oses G al i n do, Tex as pri soner # 110 553 3, pl ead ed gu i l t y t o a cha rg e of agg ravated assau l tw i t h a dead l y w eap on ; he w as sentenced to t en ye ar s o f de fe r r e d adj udi c at i o n pr o ba t i o n. I n 20 02 , hi s pr o ba t i o n was r e vo ke d, he
w a s adj u d i ca tedgu i l ty, an dh e w a s sen ten ced to 15 ye a rs of i m p ri son m en t. G ali ndo s e e ks ac e r t i f i c at e o f ap pe al ab i l i t y ( CO A) f r o m t hi s c o ur tt o a ppe alt he

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41275

2 d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 a p p l i c a t i o n ch a lle n g in gth is
c o nvi c t i o n. The di s t r i c t c o ur t f o und t hatG ali ndo ’ s a ppli c at i o n was t i m e b ar r e d. A CO A wi l l i s s ue o nl y i f t he ap pl i c antm ak e s as ubs t ant i als ho w i ng o f t he deni al of a c ons t i t ut i onal r i ght

. 28 U

. S. C

. § 2253(c ) ( 2)

. W h en a h abeas ap pl i cat i on ha s been di sm i ssed on procedu ralgroun ds, t h e petit i on er m u stshow “t h a t ju r is ts o f r e a s o n w o u ldfin dit d e b a ta b le w h e th e rth e p e tit io n s ta te s av a lid
c l ai m o f t he de ni alo f

ac o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghta nd thatj ur i s t s o f r e as o n woul d f

i nd it d e b a ta b le w h e th e rt h e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s co r r e c t in its p r o c e d u r a l ru lin g .” S lack v. McD an i el , 5 2 9 U .S

. 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). G al i n do argu es t h at th e di st ri ct court erred i n di sm i ssi n g h i s app l i cat i on as t i m e barred. A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourtm ay su a sp o n te r a ise the i ssue of t i m e l i ne s s , Ga li n d owa s n o tgive n t he r e quir e d no t i c e a nd o ppo r t uni t y t o r e s po nd to th e q u e s tio n o f th e tim e lin e s s o f h is a p p lic a tio n . S ee D ay v. McD onough , 547 U

. S. 1 98 , 2 09

- 10 ( 20 06 )

. Ac c o r di ngly, r e as o nab l e j uri st s coul d d e ba t e t he
c o r r e c tn e s s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s p r o c e d u r a l ru lin g . S ee S lack , 529 U

. S. at 484. T h e re c o r da n dC O Aa p p lic a tio n a ls o s h o w th a t r e a s o n a b le ju r is ts co u ld debat e w het herG al i ndo has m ade avali d s how i ng of a c ons t i t ut i onal dep rivati on as t o at l east t w o of h i s u n derl yi n g cl ai m s: i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of
c o u n s e l a n dth a t h e w a s n o t c o m p e te n t t o e n te rav a lidp le a . Se eHo us e rv. D r e t ke , 3 9 5 F .3 d5 6 0 , 5 6 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). H e h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t r e a s o n a b le ju r is ts co u ldd e b a te th e v a lid ity o f h is re m a in in gco n s tit u tio n a l cla im s . W e th ere fore gr a n t G a l i n d o a C O A to a p p ea l th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i ssa l of h is § 2 25 4 ap pl i c at i o n a s t i m e b ar r e d, v ac at e t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f t he § 225 4 ap p l i cat i on as t i m e barred, an d rem an d to t h e di st ri ctcourtf or f u rt h er pr o c e e di ngs co ns i s t e ntw it h t hi s o pi ni o n. Ot he rt han t o r e i t e r at e t hatG al i ndo
m u stbe g iven a n op portun i t y t o respon d t o the t i m e- bar i ssue bel ow , w e express
n o opi n i on on the u l t i m ate outc om e of t h e proceedi n gs. CO A GRANT ED ; VAC AT ED A ND R EMANDE D.