Williams v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 29 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09–9114.,09–9114. |
| Citation | Williams v. Martinez, 130 S.Ct. 2073, 176 L.Ed.2d 423, 559 U.S. 1042 (2010) |
| Parties | Craig Allan WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Ricardo MARTINEZ, Warden, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
12 cases
-
Pinkney v. United States
... ... § 2244. See Williams v. Apker, Civ. No. 10–0522, 774 F.Supp.2d 124, 127 n. 1 (D.D.C.2011) (“Because ... the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a judgment of the ... See Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 998–99 (D.C.Cir.2009), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2073, 176 L.Ed.2d 423 (2010). In assessing such a ... ...
-
Head v. Wilson
...that his lawyer was ineffective. Head contends that AEDPA's limitations period was tolled until 2009 because, until our decision in Williams v. Martinez, our case law barred him from bringing his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (IAAC) claim in federal court. See 586 F.3d 995, 10......
-
Spencer v. United States
... ... § 2254 and 2244(d). The federal district courts in this district have reached conflicting conclusions. Compare Williams v. Apker, 774 F.Supp.2d 124, 126 n. 1 (D.D.C.2011) ( “Because ... the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a judgment of the D.C. Superior Court, ... Court of Appeals. Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 999 (D.C.Cir.2009), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2073, 176 L.Ed.2d 423 (2010). A petitioner who fails to move ... ...
-
Hatch v. Jett
... ... The phrase “ ‘[r]emedy by motion’ plainly refers to motions filed pursuant to section 23–110(a).” Williams ... The phrase “ ‘[r]emedy by motion’ plainly refers to motions filed pursuant to section 23–110(a).” Williams v. Martinez ... ...
Get Started for Free