Case Name: Marlon Dantruce WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, 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: 2016-12-29
Citations: 672 F. App'x 449
Docket Number: No. 14-20543
Parties: Marlon Dantruce WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 449–449

Head Matter:
Marlon Dantruce WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-20543
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed December 29, 2016
Mark Glendon Parenti, Parenti Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant
Marlon Dantruce Williams, Pro Se
Casey Leigh Jackson Solomon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, Joseph Peter Corcoran, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that Appellee Lorie Davis's unopposed motion to cancel oral argument is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ap-pellee Lorie Davis's unopposed motion to waive the exhaustion requirement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3) with respect to those claims that were raised in Appellant Marlon Dantruce Williams's state ha-beas application is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the district court's judgment is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the district court to review Appellant Marlon Dantruce Williams's federal habeas application on the merits with respect to those claims that were raised in Appellant's state habeas application. This is a full remand. We place no limit on the matters that the district court may address, as needed, and we express no view on what rulings that court should make.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the' limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.