Case Name: Alfredo GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-09
Citations: 184 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 04-40359
Parties: Alfredo GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 426–426

Head Matter:
Alfredo GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-40359
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 9, 2006.
Alfredo Garcia, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Rosharon, TX, pro se.
Sallie Christian-Carnal, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alfredo Garcia, Texas prisoner # 668073, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the revocation of his release on mandatory supervision as time-barred. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) with respect to the question whether Garcia's motion to reopen the revocation proceedings constituted "other collateral review" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). We need not decide this question in this case. Even if it is assumed that Garcia's motion constituted "other collateral review," the limitation period nevertheless expired prior to the filing of the federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). Although Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling, COA was not granted as to that question.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.