Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d 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- 40687 Su m m ar yC al endar M I CHA ELW AY NE CRAI G, Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. RI CK T HALER, DI RE CT O R, TEXAS D EP AR TM EN T O F CR I M I N AL J U STI CE, CO RR EC T I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DIVI S I ON , 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 E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 07- C V
- 167 B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * M i cha elW ayn e C rai g, T exas pri soner # 108 591 7, w as convic t ed i n 200 2 of d r iv in gw h il e in to x ica te d(th irdorm o re offe n se ) an dse n te n ce dto life im p r is o n m e n t. A fte rh is co n v ic tio n w a s a ffir m e do n d i r e c t a p p e a l, C r a ig o bt ai ne d l e av e t o f

i l e an o ut - o f

- t i m e pe t i t i o n f o r di s c r e t i o nar y r e vi e w ( PD R) . The PD R wa s r e f

u s e di n Ap r i l2 0 0 7 , a n dCr a i gd i dn o ts e e k c e r t i o r a r if r o m t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 17, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-40687 Document: 00511112729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2010N o. 08- 40687

2 Su pre m e Court. H e fil edthe i n stan t 28 U . S . C . § 22 5 4 pe titi on onO ctob er 3 1 , 20 0 7. T h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t h e peti t i on as barred by the ap pl i cabl e oney e a r s ta tu t e o f lim ita tion s, h o ld in g , in li g h t of Sa l i nas v . D r e t ke , 354 F. 3d 425 ( 5th C i r. 200 4) , t h at t h e out- of

- t i m e P D R di d n otrei n st ate t h e di rectrevi ew pr o c e s s f

o rpur po s e s o f r e s e t t i ng t he fe de r al l i m i t at i o n pe r i o d. Cr ai g no w s e e ks a cert i f i cat e of app eal abil i t y ( C O A) t o app ealtha td et erm i n ati on . AC O Aw i l lnot i ss ue unl es s C r ai g m akes a s ubst ant i als how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i t ut i onal r i ght . 28 U . S. C . § 2253(c )( 1 )(A ), (2) . W hen, as her e, t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni al o f fe d e r a l h a b e a s re lie f is b a s e ds o le lyo n p r o c e d u r a l g r o u n d s , “a C O As h o u ld is s u e w h e n th e p r is o n e rs h o w s , a t le a s t, th 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 rt h e p e tition sta te s a v a li dcla im of th e d e n ia l of a constit u t i on alri gh tan d that j u ri st s of reason w ou ld fi n d i tdeba t able w h et h er th e dist ri ct cou rt w a s corre ct i n i ts pro ced u ra lru l i n g.” S lack v. McD an i el , 529 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ). A fte rth e d is tr ic t co u r t d is m is s e dC r a ig ’ s p e tit io n , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld t hatw hen “ a s t at e c our tgr ant s a c r i m i naldef endan tt he r i ghtt o f i l e a n o ut - o f

- t i m e dir e c ta ppe aldur i ng s t at e c o l l at e r alr e vi e w , b utb e f o r e t he de fe nda nt h as f i rstsough tfederalha beas rel i ef, hi s j u dg m en ti s not yet f i n alf or purp oses o f” t h e o n e -y e a rlim ita tio n p e r io d . Ji m e nez v . Q uar t e r m an , _U . S . _, 1 2 9 S . C t. 681 , 686 ( 200 9) (i n t erna l qu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed). A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourt di d no tha ve t he be ne f i to f t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s o pi ni o n i n Ji m enez , i t s r el i an ce o n Sal i nast o concl u de that C rai g’ s pet i t i on w as un tim e ly w as, i n l i gh tof Ji m enez, e r r o n e o u s . S ee W om ack v. T

h ale r , 5 9 1 F .3d 7 5 7 , 7 5 7 -5 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h u s, C rai g h as show n t h at reasona bl e j u ri st s w ou l d deb ate the cor rect n ess of t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s pr o c e dur alr ul i ng. On t he r e c o r d b e f o r e us , w e c o nc l ude f urth er t hatC r ai g has s at i sf i ed t he C O As t andard w i t h re spe c tt o a ver r i ng a fa c ia llyv a lidco n s tit u tio n a l cla im . See Hous e rv. D r e t ke , 39 5 F . 3 d56 0 , 56 2 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). Case: 08-40687 Document: 00511112729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2010N o. 08- 40687

3 F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e G R A N T C rai g a C O Aon the qu est i on w h e th e r h is p e tition w a s b a rr e db yth e sta tu te of li m ita tion s in li g h t of Ji m enez , w e VA C A T E t h e di st ri ct court’ s j u dg m en t , an d w e R E M A N D t o t h e di st ri ctcourt to a d d r e s s th e m e r its o f th e h a b e a s cla im s in th e fir s t in s ta n c e . S ee W om ack , 5 9 1 F .3 da t 7 5 8 ; W

h ite h e a dv . J

o h n s o n , 1 5 7 F .3 d3 8 4 , 3 8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W e e xp r e s s no o pi ni o n o n t he ul t i m at e di s po s i t i o n o f Cr ai g’ s § 2 25 4 pe t i t i o n. Case: 08-40687 Document: 00511112729 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/17/2010