### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40478 Su m m ar yC al endar NAT H CR OC KE T T W OMACK 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 NAL 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 th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d G A R Z Aan d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: Fol l ow i ng a j ury t r i al , N at h C r oc ket t W om ac k, Texas pr i so ner# 80 3963, w as c onvi c t ed o f

m urde rand w as s enten ced t o s erve l ife i n pri so n. I ni t i al l y, W o m a c kd idn o t file a p e tit io n fo rd is c r e tio n a r yr e v ie w (P D R ) w ith re s p e c t t o th is ju d g m e n t, b u tt h e T e x a s C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a ls la te rg r a n te dh im a u th o r iz a tio n to p r o c e e dw ith a n o u t-o f-t im e P D R . 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 W o m a c k ’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 in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n t h a t W o m a c k ’ s o u t-o f-t im e P D R d idn o t t o ll t h e peri od f

or f i l i n g h i s § 22 54 petit i on or ot h erw i se aff ectthe l i m i t ati on s peri od

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D December

21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40478

2 f o und i n 28 U . S. C. § 22 44 ( d) . Relyi ng upo n Ji m e nezv . Q uar t e r m an , 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 8 1 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , Wo ma c ka r g u e s t h a tt h i s d e c i s i o n w a s i n c o r r e c ta n dt h a tt h e t i me f orf i li ng hi s § 2 254 pe t i t i on be gan t o r un af t er th e con cl usi on o f pr oc ee di ngs rel ated t o hi s out- of

- t i m e P D R . T h e R espon den tagrees th at th e di st ri ctcourt in co rr e ctlyd ism iss e dW o m a ck ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p e tition a s u n tim e ly in li g h t of Ji m enez an d requ est s th at th e j u dg m en tb e v a ca t ed an d the case r em an dedf or f u rt h er proceedi n gs. T h i s c ou rtcondu ct s a de nov o revi ew of the d i st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on th a t W o m a c k ’ 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. 3d 93 1, 9 32 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 1) . I n Ji m enez , t h e C ou rthel d that “w h ere a stat e court gr ant s ac r i m i nalde fe nda ntt he r i ghtt o f i l e a n o ut - o f

- t i m e dir e c ta ppe aldur i ng st at e c oll at er alr evi ew , butbe f or e the def

endanthas f

i r sts oughtfede r alhabeas reli ef, h i s j u d gm en t is n ot y et ‘ fi n a l ’for p u rp ose s of § 22 4 4 (d)( 1 )(A). ” 1 2 9 S . C t. at686. Conseque nt l y, t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s det er m i nat i on o f un ti m eli nes s w as i n corre ct on the fa cts be fore u s. M ore ov er, W om a ck ’ s p eti ti on com p l i es w i th S lack v. McD an i el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ), in s o fa ra s it a ls o ra is e s re a s o n a b ly d e b a ta b le c la im s o f th e d e n ia l o f c o n s tit u tio n a l rig h ts . S ee Ji m enez , 12 9 S . C t. at684 n. 3 ( em phasi zi ng S lack ’ s requ i rem en t t h at, w h en a di st ri ctcourtden i es ah a b ea s p eti ti on on pr oce d u ra lgro u n d s, an ap p ell a te cou rt sh ou l d g r a n t a C ertif i ca te of A p p ea l a b i l i ty o n l y if the pr i son er sh ow s th a t reas on a b l e j u ri sts c oul d debat e b ot h w het hert he pet i t i on s tat es a v al i d c l ai m of c ons t i t ut i onal v iola tion a n dw h e th e r th e d istr ict e rr e dp ro ce d u ra lly). W e VA C A T E t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourtan d R E M A N D f or f u rt h er proce e di ngs c o ns i s t e ntw i t h Ji m enez . W e e xpr es s no o pi ni on o n t he ul t i m a te di s po s i t i o n o f

W o m ac k’ s § 2 25 4 pe t i t i o n.