*2 REAVLEY, Before JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Judges.

PER CURIAM: questions presented in appeal this are whether a national bank that its relocated main office across state lines before June pre-existing could retain its branches in its former home and whether it could estab- lish a branch new at the site of its former main office. The district court concluded that Commercial National Bank of Texar- light kana could do neither. In of this Ghiglieri court’s recent decision in v. Sun Association, World National 117 F.3d 309 (5th Cir.1997) law, Johnson, Dorothy Department Ann and Arkansas we vacate Texas Austin, TX, entry for in favor of Banking, Steven Alan Fleck- remand Austin, TX, man, appellants.1 Plaintiff-Appellee. for Stein, Larry J. of the Curren- I. DC, cy, Koppel, Washington, Rosa M. Defendant-Appellant. In National Bank of Commercial (“CNB” bank”) Roderer, applied

David William Leonard Texarkana or “the to Eric Hirschhorn, DC, Washington, Currency for Consumers the Office of the 1. The Commissioner’s motion to strike the at- sumer Bankers Association and Bankers Roundt- granted. tachments to the amicus curiae brief of the Con- able is OCC”) Ghiglieri court in (“the squarely relocate solved this or “the to Comptroller” World, Texarkana, 117 F.3d at 313-15. In that Arkansas Sun main office from its time, case, the bank we concluded that the National Bank Texas. At Act, seq., an auto- U.S.C. et is silent with operated two branch offices and also following Arkan- retention of branches machine mated teller Fouke, sas, Comp- Ar- a main office relocation and that the branch office and a third *3 approval interpretation of the to requested the bank troller’s statute allow kansas. When office, pre-existing it branches was of its main simul- retention of rea- for the relocation Comptroller’s Accordingly, Supreme authori- sonable. under the taneously sought the Chevron, U.S.A., in a new branch at its soon- Court’s decision Inc. v. zation to establish Council, Texarkana, Inc., in Ar- main office Natural Resources to-be former Defense approved ap- 104 81 694 Comptroller The both U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d kansas. (1984), Comptroller’s in- objections of the Texas we deferred to the plications over the Commissioner”) (“the terpretation. by holding We are bound our Banking Commissioner Department.2 Accordingly, in can Arkansas Bank Sun World. CNB relo- and the State Texarkana, cate its main office from Arkan- brought against suit The Commissioner pre- and retain its sas Texas Comptroller in federal district the and CNB branches, existing Arkansas and the district court, Comptroller’s seeking review concluding contrary. court erred in to the in- asking declaratory for and decision and parties All motions for junctive relief. filed The

summary judgment. Commissioner III. summary judgment on the moved next address the issue of We (1) its grounds that CNB could not relocate could establish its former main whether CNB lines, if the across state even main office 36(c) gov office as a new branch. Section the 30-mile limit estab- move was within the resolution of this issue. See 12 erns (2) 30(b); procedural § by 12 lished U.S.C. World, 36(c); § Sun 117 F.3d at 315. U.S.C. applications have in should defects CNB’s provision, a national bank can Under that (3) tempo- approval; CNB’s defeated their “[wjithin operate a branch establish and new office; actually a rary main office was branch city, village the town or in which the limits of (4) after could not retain its branches CNB situated, if association is such establish said (5) Texas; relocating main office to and its expressly operation ment and are at the time create a new branch at its CNB could not by law of the authorized to State banks the main office in Arkansas. The district former 36(c)(1). question.” U.S.C. State summary judgment to the granted World, analysis in this court’s Sun Under the fourth and fifth Commissioner on Arkansas, Texas and CNB is situated both aside grounds. The district court’s order set in Texar the creation of a new branch and Comptroller’s with decisions appli kana, governed Arkansas is the law pre-existing the retention of CNB’s branches state banks. 117 F.3d at cable to Arkansas at the its establishment of a new branch and Bank v. (citing Seattle Trust & Sav. office; enjoined main site of its former (9th Cir.1974)): Calif., Bank 492 F.2d 48 of operations in the banking State CNB’s Texas; enjoined Comptroller from concluded that The district court applications. approving similar relocation its former main CNB could not establish law. a office under Arkansas office as branch

H. part on the conclusion was based This to retain premise that was not entitled national bank that relocat CNB Whether a after relo pre-existing Arkansas branches state lines before its ed its main office across decision in Sun 1, 1997, pre-existing cating its main office. Our retain its June could faulty premise is established that that home state was re- World branches its former party appeal. Department a on State Bank was not 2. The Arkansas party proceedings it district court nor is to the not, however, pre- adopt the can indeed retain its We need Third and that bank because, analysis point on this But that does not end the Circuit’s existing branches. concluded, propriety Comptroller’s favor. still inquiry in the We the conversion of former main office branching CNB’s Arkansas must determine whether plainly by into a office is branch answered posi- allow a state bank CNB’s law would 23-32-1202(b)(2) of the Arkansas Section new branch in tion to establish a Code, provides: which Arkansas. principal A bank which relocates its bank- provi- concluded that two ing may office continue to use its former permitted the estab- sions of Arkansas law principal banking office location as a full former main office as a lishment CNB’s service branch customer-bank commu- first allows an Arkansas new branch. The long nication terminal so as the use as a “anywhere state bank to establish a branch banking facility uninterrupted. is *4 county establishing the in which the

within 23-32-1202(b)(2). § Because Ann. ArkCode banking principal bank’s office is located.” 8, 1995, Comptroller the on March simulta- 23-32-1202(b)(l). § Ann. ArkCode neously allowed CNB to relocate its main office to Comptroller on the Third Texas and to establish relied Cir- in Trust case to its former main office Arkansas as a Seattle reasoning in the cuit’s branch, question there is no that the use of county “principal that the of conclude CNB’s banking facility this office as a was uninter- purpose banking office” for the of Arkansas rupted. Arkansas, up- The district court should have branching County, law was Miller Comptroller’s approval held the of the estab- pre- former main office where CNB’s a lishment of new branch at the site of In Seattle existing branches were located. CNB’s former main office on Trust, based Section Comp- the Third Circuit reviewed the 23-32-1202(b)(2). Washington troller’s construction of branching that statute mirrors Section 23- IV. 32-1202(b)(l) of the Arkansas Code. 492 F.2d Washington Accordingly, we at 52. The statute restricted a VACATE the decision of the district court and REMAND to branching city state bank to in “the town the dis- or entry judgment trict court for principal place of favor of which its of is business located____” Comptroller and CNB. Id. The court concluded that a principal place national bank’s of business REAVLEY, Judge, concurring: Seattle, Washington, under this statute was though corporate headquar- even the bank’s I accept concur in the I because Francisco, ters were San California. 492 36(c) § per- construction of U.S.C. agreed F.2d at 52-53. The Third Circuit mit the establishment of branches within Ar- Comptroller “principal place with the that branches, though kansas when now not the business,” Washington banking as used in office, home have been located there. The law, princi- should be construed to mean “the statute allows this “within the state which pal place situated____” of business within the State prior said association is A Id. Washington.” at 52. As the Seattle panel agreed has with the Ninth Circuit and Trust explained, “There is no such that this describes situated thing Washington as a state bank with its branches as well main I as office. do not place principal Washing- of business outside disagree and can read the statute to allow ton.” Id. at 52-53. The in this branches to be retained where new branches thing case reasoned that there is no such My could be established. esteemed col- principal banking an Arkansas bank with its error, however, leagues say they are when Arkansas, and, accordingly, office outside of § 36 is silent with reten- Arkansas, County, that Miller all where tion of branches after relocation of the main CNB’s facilities were main begins: located before the office. Section 36 “The conditions relocation, office must upon banking be location of its which a national association principal banking may operate office within Arkansas. retain or establish and a branch following:” We are re- are the or branches in the lan- the authorization

quired to find 36(e). agree I that we Because guage of can, I concur.

Zachary JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, TOOMBS, Warden,

Raymond Respondent-Appellee. (brief), MI, Zachary City, R. Jones Carson No. 95-1340. se, pro (argued Trisha Zeller James Appeals, United Court States briefed), Louisville, KY, Petitioner-Ap- Sixth Circuit. pellant. *5 Hunter, Attorney Kathleen Davison Asst. 12, 1996. Argued Nov. briefed), (argued and Arthur E. General 13, 1997.* Decided Feb. D’Hondt, General, Attorney Ha- Office Division, MI, Lansing, Respondent beas Appellee. MARTIN, Judge; KEITH

Before: Chief BATCHELDER, Judges.

OPINION MARTIN, Jr., Judge. F. Chief

BOYCE appeals Zachary R. Jones the dismissal corpus petition, claiming that the his habeas peti- improperly dismissed his district procedurally tion on the basis that Jones pursuant adequate to an defaulted his claims independent procedural rule. For state below, given we affirm the deci- the reasons the district court. sion of

I. 1983, sepa-

During the summer of two court, proceedings Michigan state rate delivering a con- was convicted of Jones being a fourth-time trolled substance and of was sentenced felony Jones then offender. twenty forty years. prison to a term right to the Michi- appeal his Jones filed * opin- designated "unpub- August the court originally an This decision was issued as publication. February recommended for full-text 1997. On ion as one lished decision" filed on