Finley v. Epps , 105 F. App'x 539 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS          June 29, 2004
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-60692
    Summary Calendar
    AARON FINLEY,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    CHRISTOPHER EPPS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 4:03-CV-3-LN
    --------------------
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    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),
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 03-60692
    -2-
    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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-60692

Citation Numbers: 105 F. App'x 539

Judges: Davis, Higginbotham, Per Curiam, Prado

Filed Date: 6/29/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023