October Term 2010 · Docket 09-868
Does a state sentence reduction motion toll the federal habeas clock?
The dispute centers on whether a state motion for sentence reduction counts as collateral review under federal law.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Weisman argued the motion is a pure plea for leniency.
Mizner argued the motion is state post-conviction collateral review.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 8-34 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 8-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 32-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 32-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 26-32 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 26-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 46-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 46-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-26
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of federal habeas corpus deadlines. The core issue is statutory interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The Court must define what constitutes collateral review for tolling purposes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 8-34 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 8-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-6
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
Kholi wants the state motion to toll the federal filing deadline.
Wall wants the state motion to fail to toll the federal deadline.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 8-34 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 8-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-6
What each side says
Kholi argues the motion is post-conviction collateral review under federal law.
Wall argues the motion is a pure plea for leniency, not collateral review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 8-34 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 8-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-6
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if Rule 35 permits legal challenges.
Justice Ginsburg asked why the motion is not post-conviction review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 32-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 32-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 26-32 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 26-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 46-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 46-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-26
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal habeas deadlines. It determines when state proceedings pause the federal clock. The outcome affects all state prisoners seeking federal relief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 8-34 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 8-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-6
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 32-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 32-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 26-32 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 26-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 38-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 38-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 46-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 46-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-26
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 8-34 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 8-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 8-34 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 8-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-6
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.