* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20861

Summary Calendar

GLENN A. HALTOM

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RISSI L. OWENS

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(07-CV-2494)

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glenn A. Haltom, Texas prisoner # 630919, seeks a certificate of appealability

(COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. In his

application, Haltom challenged the denial of street-time credits and the forfeiture of

work-time and good-time credits after his parole revocation. 

Haltom must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). “A

petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree

with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20861

2

conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327.

As for Haltom’s claims that his sentence imposed after the revocation of his

parole violates the ex postfacto clause,the separation of powers clause, and the double

jeopardy clause and that he was forced to agree to the forfeiture of work-time and

good-time credits when he agreed to the conditions and rules of parole, Haltom has not

made the requisite showing to obtain a COA. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993); Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1999); FED. RULE

APP. PROC. 28(a)(9). Therefore, his COA request as for these claims is DENIED. 

Before September 2001, Texas law allowed the Board of Pardons and Paroles to

disregard the street time a prisoner accumulated while on release. TEX. GOV’T CODE

ANN. § 508.283 (Vernon 1998). Prisoners had no liberty interest in retention of street

time upon revocation of release status. See Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 426

(5th Cir. 2001). However, it is possible that amendments to the relevant statute have

created a protected liberty interest in retention of streettime by some prisoners whose

release was revoked after September 1, 2001. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 508.283

(Vernon 2004); see Ex parte Spann, 132 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Whitley v.

Dretke, 111F.App’x 222, 223 (5th Cir. 2004).

The record in Haltom’s case does not indicate the exact dates of when he began

serving his sentence, when he was released, when his release was revoked, or how

much time was remaining on his sentence when he was released. Nor does the record

provide details about his conviction, such as the statute of conviction. 

Because Haltom conceivably has a protected liberty interest in retaining his

street-time credits, his request for a COA is GRANTED regarding his contention that

he was deprived of street-time credits without due process. Because the record does

not provide a sufficient factual basis for determination of Haltom’s street-time

contention, and because the district court has not addressed whether § 508.283 creates

a liberty interest, the judgment is VACATED AND REMANDED regarding the
No. 07-20861

3

street-time contention only, for proceedings consistent with this order. We express no

opinion on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT COA DENIED IN PART; COA GRANTED IN PART;

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.