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. 08-40831

Summary Calendar

WILLIE L RAY,

Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:08-CV-149

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie L. Ray, Texas prisoner # 1210691, seeks a certificate of appealability

(COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as

time barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA)

one-year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In his petition, Ray sought

to challenge his 2003 aggravated assault conviction and 45-year sentence of

imprisonment.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 24, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 08-40831 Document: 00511120118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2010
No. 08-40831

2

To obtain a COA, Ray must make “a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000). When, as here, the district court’s denial of relief is based upon

procedural grounds without analysis of the underlying constitutional claims, “a

COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

The district court dismissed Ray’s § 2254 petition as barred by the

applicable one-year statute of limitations. This dismissal was based on the

district court’s conclusion that, in light of Salinas v. Dretke, 354 F.3d 425 (5th

Cir. 2004), Ray’s out-of-time petition for discretionary review was not part of the

direct review process for purposes of calculating the federal limitations period.

Following the district court’s dismissal of Ray’s petition, the Supreme

Court held that when “a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file

an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the

defendant has first sought federal habeas relief, his judgment is not yet ‘final’

for purposes of” the one-year limitations period. Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129

S. Ct. 681, 686 (2009). Although the district court did not have the benefit of the

Supreme Court’s opinion in Jimenez, its reliance on Salinas to conclude that

Miller’s petition was untimely was, in light of Jimenez, erroneous. See Womack

v. Thaler, 591 F.3d 757, 757-58 (5th Cir. 2009). Consequently, Ray has shown

that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the district court’s

procedural ruling. Further, we conclude that Ray has satisfied the COA

standard with respect to whether reasonable jurists would debate that his

petition states a valid constitutional claim. See Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560,

562 (5th Cir. 2004).

For the foregoing reasons, Ray’s motion for a COA is GRANTED on the

issue whether this petition was barred by the statute of limitations; his motion

Case: 08-40831 Document: 00511120118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2010
No. 08-40831

3

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; the district court’s

judgment dismissing Ray’s § 2254 petition as time barred is VACATED; and this

matter is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings. See

Womack, 591 F.3d at 758; Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir.

1998). Ray’s motions for appointment of appellate counsel and to expedite the

appeal are DENIED. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of Ray’s

§ 2254 petition.

Case: 08-40831 Document: 00511120118 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2010