Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should 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- 50572 Su m m ar yC al endar

R O LA N D C H A M P IO N , 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 W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C V

- 318

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Aj ury c onvi c t ed Rol and C ham pi on o f aggrav at ed se xualas sa ul tas w el las i n decen cy w i t h a c h i l d, an d h e w as sentenced to serve 25 years i n pri son f or t h e s e o f fe n s e s . I n i t i a l l y , Ch a m p i o n d i d n o t a p p e a l h i s c r i m i n a l j u d g m e n t , b ut t h e T exas C ou rtof

C ri m i n al A pp eal s l ater gran t ed hi m au t h ori zati on t o proceed
w ith a n o u t-o f-t im e a p p e a l. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50572

2 T h e in s t a n ta p p e a l a r is e s fr o m th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d e n ia l o f C h a m p io n ’s 28 U
. S
. C
. § 225 4 h abea s c orpu s pet i t i on as un t i m el y. Th i s den i alw as groun ded i n t he di st r i c tcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on thatC ham pi on’ s out
- of

- t i m e di r ec tappeal di d no tt o l lt he pe r i o d f or f i l i n g hi s § 2 25 4 pe t i t i o n o ro t he r w i s e a f fe c tt he lim ita tio n s p e r io dfo u n din 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ). C h a m p io n a r g u e s t h a t t h is d ecisi on w a s i n corre ct an dtha t t h e ti m e for f i lin g h i s § 2 2 5 4 pe ti ti on be ga n to
r u n a fte rth e co n c lu s io n o f p r o c e e d in g s re la te dto h is o u t-o f-t im e d ir e c t a p p e a l. T h i s c ou rtcondu ct s a de n ovo revi ew of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on th a t C h a m p io n ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n w a s u n tim e ly
. S ee E m ers on v. Joh n son , 243 F .3 d9 3 1 , 9 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Ji m e nezv . Q uar t e r m an , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 6 8 1 (20 0 9 ),
w h ic h w a s d e c id e d a fte r th e d is tr ic t co u r t d e n ie dC h a m p io n ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n , is d i sp ositiv e . Jim enez i nst r uct s t hat , i n ca se s suc h as t hi s, t he o ne- year l i m i t at i ons peri od i n § 2244( d) ( 1) (A) begi ns t o run w hen t he out

- of

- t i m e a ppeal becom es f

i n al
. 129 S
. C t
. at 686

- 87. A s a r esul t , t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c on t rary d e te r m in a tio n w a s e r r o n e o u s . S e eid
. C on sequ en t l y, t h e j u dg m en tof thedi s t ri ct
c our t i s VA C A TE D , and t hi s c as e i s R E M A N D E D f or furth er pro c ee di ngs c o ns i s t e ntw i t h Ji m enez . W e express no opi n i on on the u l t i m ate di sposi t i on of C h a m p io n ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n .