Opinion
Criminal No. 09-26 ADM/JSM Civil No. 12-1714 ADM
03-18-2013
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Martez Lamont Williams, Defendant.
Carol M. Kayser, Esq., United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of the Plaintiff. Martez Lamont Williams, pro se.
ORDER
Carol M. Kayser, Esq., United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of the Plaintiff. Martez Lamont Williams, pro se.
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of Martez Lamont Williams' ("Williams") Motion for an Extension of Time to Answer Government's Supplemental Response [Docket No. 97]. For the reasons below, Williams' motion is denied.
After a jury verdict of guilty, Williams was sentenced to a 247 month term of imprisonment on August 18, 2009. [Docket No. 63]. Williams was represented by counsel in a direct appeal of his conviction. On February 25, 2011, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Williams' conviction. United States v. Williams, 413 Fed. Appx. 938, 942 (8th Cir. 2011). On October 3, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied Williams' petition for writ of certiorari. Williams v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 173 (2011).
Williams then challenged his conviction, moving to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 Motion [Docket No. 81]. In January 2013, after the court granted him an extension to reply, Williams filed arguments in support of his four 2255 claims; he also stated an additional 2255 claim. Pro Se Motion to Amend [Docket Nos. 92 & 93]. The Court had already ordered and received the Government's Response [Docket No. 84] to Williams' first 2255 Motion. The Government also chose to respond to Williams' additional claim, on January 30, 2013. Gov't's Supplemental Resp. to § 2255 Mot. ("Supplemental Response") [Docket No. 94].
On February 15, 2013, the Court denied all five of Williams' claims and declined to issue a certificate of appealability [Docket No. 95].
Williams now requests an extension of time to file a reply to the Government's Supplemental Response. After a through review, the Court has already ruled on the merits of Williams' 2255 Motion. Williams' current motion is rendered moot by the Court's denial of his 2255 Motion.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant Martez Lamont Williams' Pro Se Motion for an Extension fo Time to Answer Government's Supplemental Response [Docket No. 97] is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
______________
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE