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- 10797 Su m m ar y Cal endar RA NDA L L L B ANK S Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant v. RI CK T HAL E R , D I R E C T OR , T EXAS DEPART M ENT OFCRI M I NAL J UST I 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 ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V
- 45 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 I A M: * R an da l lL . B an ks, T exas pri soner # 108 418 8 , seeks a cer t i f i cat e of a p p e a l a b i l i t y ( CO A) t o a p p e a lt h e d i s m i s s a lwi t h p r ej u d i c e o f h i s 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 254 pet i t i on as t i m e bar r ed. Th e di st r i c t c our t ’ s t i m el i nes s det er m i nat i on w as groun ded i n i t s c on cl u si on t h at B a n k s’s ou t - of

- t i m e peti t i on f or di scr et i on ary revi e w (P D R ) di d n ott ol lt h e peri od f or f i l i n g h i s § 225 4 peti t i on or ot h erw i se a ffec t th e li m ita tion s p e rio dfou n din 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 7, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-10797 Document: 00511133945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010N o. 08- 10797

2 AC O Am ay be i ss ued onl y i f t he pet i t i on er“ has m ade as ubst ant i al s ho w i ng o f

t he deni alo f

a c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ght . ” 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 25 3(c ) . W he n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f § 2 25 4 r e l i e f

i s b as ed on pr o c e dur alg r o unds w i t ho ut ana l ys i s o f

t he und e r l yi ng c o ns t i t ut i o nalc l ai m s , “ a CO A sh o ul d i s s ue w he n t he pri soner show s, a tl east, t h at j u ri st s of reason w ou l d f

i n d i tdeba t able w h et h er t he pet i t i on st at es a val i d c l ai m of t he deni al of a c ons t i t ut i onal r i ght and t hat j u ri st s of

reason w ou l d f

i n d i td ebatable w h et h er the di st ri ctcou rtw as cor rect i n i ts pro ced u ra lru l i n g.” S lack v. McD an i el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). A f t er t h e di st ri ctcourti ssued i t s j u dg m en ti n t hi s c ase, t h e Su prem e C ou rt hel d t hat“ w her e as t at e c our tgr ant s a c r i m i naldef endantthe r i ghtt o f i l e a n o ut - o f

- t i m e di r 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 rst soug h t federal h abea s rel i ef, h i s j u dg m en ti s not yet ‘ f i n al ’f or purp oses of § 22 4 4 (d)( 1 )(A). ” Ji m e ne zv . Q uar t e r m an , 129 S. C t . 681 ( 20 09 ) . I n W om ack v. T h ale r , 591 F. 3d 757 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) , t h is court extend ed the rat i on al e of Ji m enez t o a c as e w he r e t he s t at e c o ur t gr ant e d a c r i m i nal de fe nda ntt he r i ght t o f i l e a n o ut - o f

- t i m e PD R. Con s e que nt l y, j ur i s t s o f r e as o n c o ul d d e ba t e t he p rop ri ety of th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s p roce d u ra l ru l i n g. S ee S l ack , 529 U . S. at484. Ju ri st s of

reason coul d l i kew i se debate w h et h er B an ks’ s § 225 4 peti t i on “ st ates a va l i dcl a i m of th e d en i a lof a con sti tu ti on a lri gh t. ” I d. W e th e r e fo r e g r a n ta C O A , v a c a t e th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d is m is s a l o f B a n k s ’s § 225 4 peti t i on as un t i m e ly, an d rem an d the m att er t o t h e di st ri ctcourtf or f ur t he rpr o c e e di ngs c o ns i s t e ntw i t h Ji m eneza nd W om ack . S ee Hous 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 ); W h i t eheadv. Joh n son , 157 F. 3d 384, 387- 88 ( 5th C i r. 199 8) . B an ks ’ s m ot i on s f or l eave to f

i l e a sup pl em en t albri ef an d f or co n sid e ra tion of Ji m eneza r e a l s o g r ant e d. M OT I ONS GR ANT ED ; J UDGMENT VAC AT ED ; C AS E RE M AND ED . Case: 08-10797 Document: 00511133945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010