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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40831 Su m m ar y Cal endar
W I LL I E LRAY , P eti ti on er–A p p ell a n t,
v. RI CK T H AL ER , D I RE CT O R, TEXAS D EP AR TM EN T O F CR I M I NALJ 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 or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C V

- 149
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * W illi e L . R a y , T e x a s p r is o n e r#1 2 1 0 6 9 1 , se e k s ace r tific a te o f a p p ea l ab ility ( C O A) t o a ppealt he di st r i c t c our t ’ s di sm i ss alof hi s 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254 pe t i t i on as ti m e b ar r e d un de rt he Ant i t e r r o r i s m a nd Ef fe c t iveD e ath Pe nalt y Ac t ’ s (AEDPA) o n e -y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d
. S ee2 8 U
. S. C. § 224 4( d)
. I n hi s pet i t i o n, R ays o ugh t t o chal l en ge h i s 2003 aggrav ated assau l tconvi ct i on an d 45

- year sen te n ce of i m p ri son m en t. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 24, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-40831 Document: 00511120118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2010N o. 08- 40831

2 T o obtai n a C O A , R ay m u st m ak e “ a sub st an t i alshow i n g of t h e den i alof aco n s tit u tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); S lack v. McD an i el , 529 U
. S. 473, 484 ( 200 0)
. W h en , as here, t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s d e n i alof reli ef i s based u pon p roce d u ra lgro u n d s w i th ou t an a l ys i s of th e u n d erlyingcon sti tu ti on a lcl a i m s, “a C O As h o u ldis s u e w h e nth 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 ld fin dit d e b a ta b le w h e th e rt h e p e t it ion 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 rist s of reason w ou l d f

i n d i tdeba t able w h et h er th e d i stri ct cou rt w a s corre ct i n its pro ced u ra lru l i n g.” S lack , 529 U
. S. at484. The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi s m i s s e d Ray’ s § 225 4 pe t i t i o n a s b ar r e d b y t he ap pli c ab l e o ne - years t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns . Thi s di s m i s s alw as b as e d o n t he d istr ict co u rt’s co n clu sio n th a t, inli g h t of Sa l i nas v . D re t ke , 3 5 4 F .3 d 4 2 5 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 4) , Ray’ s 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 nary r e vi e w w asno tpa r to f t he dir e c tr e vi e w pr o c e s s f o rpur po s e s o f

c al c ul at i ng t he f

e de r all i m i t at i o ns pe r i o d. F ol l ow i n g t h e di st ri ct court’ s di sm i ssal of R ay’ s petit i on , th e S u prem e C o u r t h e ldth a t w h e n “a s ta te co u r t g r a n ts a c r im in a l d e fe n d a n t t h e rig h t t o file an o ut
- o f

- t i m e directa 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 d e fe n d a n t h a s fir s t s o u g h t fe d e r a l h a b e a s re lie f, h i s ju d g m e n t is n o t y e t ‘fin a l’ fo rp u r p o s e s o f” t h e o n e -y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d
. Ji m e nezv . Q uar t erm an , 129 S. Ct
. 6 81 , 6 86 ( 20 09 )
. Al t ho ught he di s t r i c tco ur tdi d no tha vet he b e ne f i to f t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s o pi ni o n i n Ji m enez , it s r e l i anc e o n Sal i nast o c onc l ude t hat M iller ’ s p e tition w a s u n tim e ly w a s, i n li g h t of 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
. 3 d 7 5 7 , 7 5 7
- 5 8 ( 5 t h Cir . 2 0 0 9 )
. C o n s e q u e n t l y , R a yh a s s h o wn t h a tr e a s o n a b le ju r is t s w o u ldd e b a t e th e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s p r o c e d u r a lr ul i ng . Fur t h e r , wec o n c l u d e t h a tR a yh a s s a t i s f i e dt h e C OA s ta n d a r dw ith re s p e c t t o w h e th e rre a s o n a b le ju r i s ts w o u ldd e b a te th a t h is p e tit io n s ta te s a v a lidco n s tit u tio n a l cla im
. SeeHous e rv. D r e t ke , 395 F. 3d 560, 5 6 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , Ray’ s m o t i o n f o raCO A i s G RA N TE D o n t he i ssue w h et h er th i s petit i on w as barred by t h e st atute of l i m i t ati on s; hi s m ot i on Case: 08-40831 Document: 00511120118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2010N o. 08- 40831

3 fo rle a v e to p r o c e e din fo r m a p a u p e r is is G R A N T E D ; t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in gR a y ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n a s t im e b a r r e dis VA C A T E D ; a n dth is m a tt e ris R E M A N D E D to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo rfu r th e rp r o c e e d in g s . S ee W om ack , 5 9 1 F .3 da t 7 5 8 ; W h it eh ea dv. J

oh n s o n , 1 5 7 F .3d 384 , 388 ( 5th C i r. 19 98 )
. Ray ’ s m o t i o ns f o ra ppo i nt m e ntof

appe l l at e co uns e land t o e xp e dit e t he a p p e a l a r e D E N I E D
. W e e x p r e s s n o o p in io n o n t h e u lt im a t e d is p o s it io n o f R a y ’s § 2 25 4 pe t i t i o n. Case: 08-40831 Document: 00511120118 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2010