
    Brenda Sue BAILEY; John Allen Babin; Charles Francis Coleman; James Arnold Schnur; Ralph F. Schnur, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Charles ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas, Respondent-Appellee. John Allen Babin, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles Rosenthal, District Attorney for Harris County Texas, Respondent-Appellee. Charles Francis Coleman, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles Rosenthal, District Attorney for Harris County Texas, Respondent-Appellee. James Arnold Schnur, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles Rosenthal, District Attorney for Harris County Texas, Respondent-Appellee. Ralph F. Schnur, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles Rosenthal, District Attorney for Harris County Texas, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-20516.
    USDC Nos. 4:03-CV-1344, 4:03-CV-1343, 4:03-CV-1342, 4:03-CV-1341, 4:03-CV-1340.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 8, 2005.
    George McCall Secrest, Jr., Bennett & Secrest, Houston, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Michael Robert Hull, Assistant County Attorney, Linda Susan Gibson, Houston, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
   PER CURIAM:

The appellants in this case appeal from the dismissal of their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions. A certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because the appellants are seeking release from the pending state criminal proceedings against them, a COA is required before they can proceed on appeal. Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 261-262 (5th Cir.1998).

The district court must make the initial determination whether a COA should issue. Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of the district court’s issuance of a COA ruling. Once the district court has issued its ruling, this court will consider the case. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     