                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                          _____________________

                                 No. 98-30822
                               Summary Calendar
                            _____________________

                                DENNIS NALL,

                                                    Petitioner-Appellant,

                                   versus

                            KELLY WARD, Warden,

                                             Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Louisiana
                             (98-CV-203)
_________________________________________________________________
                            July 5, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Dennis Nall, Louisiana prisoner # 105494, appeals, pro se, the

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred by the

one-year   statute     of     limitations   set   forth   in   28   U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1).   Nall contends that the district court erred in

determining that his state application for post-conviction relief,

dismissed as untimely pursuant to LA. CODE CRIM. P. art. 930.8, see

Nall v. State, 703 So. 2d 14 (La. 1997), was not “properly filed”,

as that term is used in § 2244(d)(2).

     Subsequent to the dismissal of Nall’s application by the

district court, our court issued opinions in Villegas v. Johnson,

184 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 1999) (state habeas application,

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
dismissed as successive pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ANN. art.

11.07, § 4, “properly filed” within meaning of § 2244(d)(2)), and

Smith v. Ward, 209 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 2000) (state application

for post-conviction relief, denied as time-barred pursuant to LA.

CODE CRIM. P. art. 930.8, “properly filed” within meaning of §

2244(d)(2)).   Under Villegas and Smith, Nall’s state application

for post-conviction relief was “properly filed” for purposes of

§ 2244(d)(2) and should have tolled the § 2244(d)(1) limitations

period.   Accordingly,   the   judgment   dismissing   Nall’s   §   2254

application as time-barred is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                             VACATED and REMANDED




                                  2
