Case Name: Aaron FINLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Christopher EPPS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-29
Citations: 105 F. App'x 539
Docket Number: No. 03-60692
Parties: Aaron FINLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Christopher EPPS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 105
Pages: 539–540

Head Matter:
Aaron FINLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Christopher EPPS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-60692
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 29, 2004.
Aaron Finley, Leakesville, MS, pro se.
Jo Anne McFarland McLeod, Jerrolyn M. Owens, Jackson, MS, for Respondents Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Finley, Mississippi state prisoner # 66987, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as barred by the one-year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). A judge of this court granted a certificate of appealability on the issues whether Finley is entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B), in light of Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433 (5th Cir.2003), and/or to equitable tolling on the basis that he was "prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights." See Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir.1999). The overarching issue is what disposition this court should make in light of the fact that most of the evidence now relied on by the parties is being presented on appeal for the first time.
This court reviews the district court's findings of fact only for clear error. This includes deferring to the district court's resolution of conflicts requiring credibility determinations. See Galvan v. Cockrell, 293 F.3d 760, 764 (5th Cir.2002). Because such conflicts are present, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand the cause. Upon remand, the parties can present their evidence to the district court, which should state appropriate findings and conclusions. See Barrientes v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 741, 770 (5th Cir.2000).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.