¶1Gena Blount Bunn (argued), Holmes & Moore, P.L.L.C., Longview, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
¶2Thomas Merrill Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), Office of the Atty. Gen., Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
¶3ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
¶4Before STEWART, CLEMENT and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
¶6In our earlier consideration of this case, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Cantu’s petition for federal habeas relief. See Cantu v. Thaler, 632 F.3d 157 (5th Cir.2011). Among other grounds for relief, Cantu argued that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We held that this claim was procedurally *1054defaulted, and that Cantu’s contention that his state habeas counsel was ineffective did not constitute cause for the procedural default. The Supreme Court has remanded the case for us to consider the effect of Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012) on our holding.
¶7IT IS ORDERED that this matter be remanded to the district court so that the district court may decide in the first instance the impact of Martinez v. Ryan on Cantu’s contention that he had cause for his procedural default.