Case Name: Cesar MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent David L. MILLER, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General, Respondents-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-19
Citations: 330 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 06-5876-pr
Parties: Cesar MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent David L. MILLER, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General, Respondents-Appellants.
Judges: Present: Hon. ROGER J. MINER, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, Hon. TIMOTHY C. STANCEU, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 330
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Cesar MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent David L. MILLER, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General, Respondents-Appellants.
No. 06-5876-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 19, 2009.
Paul J. Angioletti, Staten Island, N.Y., for Petitioner-Appellant.
Mark Dwyer (Patrick J. Hynes, on the brief), for Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York, N.Y., for Appellee.
Present: Hon. ROGER J. MINER, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, Hon. TIMOTHY C. STANCEU, Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is automatically sub stituted for former New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer as party to this case.
The Honorable Timothy C. Stanceu, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner challenges his conviction under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), via habe-as corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This Court considered and rejected a habeas petition by Petitioner's co-defendant at trial that presented the same issue on the same factual record. Martinez v. Kelly, 253 Fed.Appx. 127 (2d Cir.2007). Summary orders do not have prec-edential value. Nor are we bound by these orders except to the extent they establish the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. However, we agree with the conclusion of that panel that the state court did not unreasonably apply federal law as clearly established by the Supreme Court of the United States at the time of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Policano v. Herbert, 507 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir.2007); see also Overton v. Newton, 295 F.3d 270, 278-79 (2d Cir.2002).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief is hereby AFFIRMED.
. These exceptions do not apply here.