### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI FTH CI RCUI T

_____________________ No. 11-70031

_____________________ RAMIRO RUBI IBARRA, Petitioner - Appellant

v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent - Appellee

__________________________ A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

__________________________ Before JONES, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
O R D E R Treating the A ppella n t ’ s m o t ion f or en banc rehearing as a motion for panel rehearing, and g iven the Supreme C ourt’s recent decision in Trevino v. Thaler ,133 S

. Ct. 1911 (2013), the court GRANTS the m o t i o n f or rehearing in part. 1 We hereby VACATE our prior panel decision o nly to the ext e nt i n consistent with Trevino and grant a COA o nly to that extent; in al l o t h e r respects, t he majority and dissent i n g o p i n ions remain in effect. In light of t h i s n ew authority, we VACATE the district court’s o rder to the exte n t inconsistent with T

revino and REMAND to the district court f or p r o c e edings consistent herewith. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D J uly 17, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

1 The ef f ec t of t his r uling is t o moot t he Pet it ion f or R ehear ing E n Banc

. Case: 11-70031 Document: 00512313024 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2013No. 11-70031

GRAVES, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree that the Supreme C ourt’s recent decision in T r e v ino v. Thaler , 133 S.Ct. 1191 (2013), requires u s t o v a cate our prior decision, grant Ibarra’s certificate of appealability (COA), and remand to t h e district court f o r the appropriate application of Martinez v. R yan , 1 32 S.Ct. 1309 ( 2012). 2 The trial court should, in the first i nstance, be a llowed to apply M artin e z i n a ccordance with Trevino

. See Cantu v. Thaler , 682 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 2012) However, I disagree with the m ajority’s inclusion of the l a nguage that “in all other respects, the majority and dissenting o pinions remain in effect.” The inclusion of this language is an u n w a rranted a nd unnecessary p otential limiter on the consideration o f Ibarra’s cl a i m s o f i neffective assistance of trial counsel with regard to issues on w h i c h the majority previously d enied his COA. I barra i s clearly n ot f oreclosed from raising his ineffective as s i s t a n c e of counsel claims on t hese i ssues. Simply put, the trial court is free to determine w h ether or not evidence related t o these issues is relevant to any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and is likewise free to determine if

a n y i neffective assistance affects the m erits of t h ese issues or any proced u r a l default. Id. Thus, I disagree with any language w h i c h may be construed to the contrary.

2 This is ent ir ely c onsist ent wit h my p r evious sep ar at e op inions in t his c ase wher ein I d isagr eed wit h t he p anel m ajor it y’s r ejec ti o n o f th e ap p lic at ion of Ma r ti ne z
. Se e Iba r r a v
. T ha l e r , 687 F

. 3d 222 ( 2012) ( Gr aves, J. , c onc ur r ing in p ar t and d issent ing in p ar t ) , and Iba r r a v
. T ha l e r , 691 F. 3d 677 ( 2012) ( Gr aves, J. , d issent ing)

. 2 Case: 11-70031 Document: 00512313024 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2013