Whether a duplicitous indictment charging two distinct bank fraud subsections conjunctively as a single offense violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and whether a defendant's constitutional right to trial in the proper venue may be waived without explicit knowing and voluntary relinquishment

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, Petitioner, Jeremie Saintvil, respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time within which to petition for a writ of certiorari, up to and including Monday, October 30, 2022’. Given the complexities arising from a duplicitous indictment, unlawful surplusage and the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be tried in the proper venue, additional time is imperative to adequately present this pressing matter before the Court. . JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT On May 25, 2023, in United States v. Saintvil, No. 22-10004 (attached as Exhibit 1; original District Court Judgment attached as Exhibit 2), the Eleventh Circuit Circuit affirmed Mr. Saintvil’s conviction and sentence. Mr. Saintvil petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for rehearing en banc and was subsequently denied on June 28, 2023. JURISDICTION This Court will have jurisdiction over any timely filed petition for certiorari in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Under Supreme Court Rules 13.1, 13.3, and 30.1, a petition for a writ of certiorari is currently due to be filed on or before September 28, 2023. This application has been filed at least 10 days before the date a petition would be due. See Sup. Ct. R. 13.5. ' October 28, 2023 would be a Saturday; therefore, Petitioner is requesting until Monday October 30, 2023 to file his petition since the Court is closed on Saturdays. 1 REASONS JUSTIFYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME This case involves three issues of exceptional importance. The first centers around the Eleventh Circuit's split with this Court and every circuit that has addressed whether the two bank fraud subsections define separate and distinct offenses requiring being charged disjunctively. This second involves the Eleventh Circuit's sanctioning of surplusage that broadened a criminal statute to include Congressional omissions. Permitting a prosecuting attorney to usurp the constitutionally invested authority of the United States Congress to define the scope of a criminal statute. The third centers around a fundamental constitutional right to proper venue and the misapplication of the waiver doctrine of this right. The Eleventh Circuit's ruling effectively denied the Petitioner of his constitutional right to a trial in the proper venue. This Court's intervention is warranted to ensure national uniformity in the waiver of venue rights. The additional time is imperative to adequately present this matter given: 1, Complexity of the Issue: The instant case involves the issue of a duplicitous indictment that conjunctively charged the two subsections of the bank fraud statute as one offense, in a split with the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth circuits which holds the two subsections are separate offenses. The constitutional consequences of sanctioning surplusage that enlarged the statutory scope of a criminal statute to include Congressional omissions. This also revolves around one of the constitutional cornerstones—the right to a fair trial in the appropriate venue. The nuanced intricacies of this case, combined with the Government's discovery violations, make it especially intricate, necessitating more time for thorough examination and preparation. 2. Magnitude of the Constitutional Error: The Eleventh Circuit's decision directly ~~ conflicts with this Court's caselaw, circuit and district courts, and endorsed the Government violation of Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantees to Due Process and a unanimous jury verdict as to every element of the offense charged. The Eleventh Circuit sanctioned surplusage that permits the Government to define a federal criminal statute as it deemed fit, effectively usurping Congressional authority. The Eleventh Circuit's acknowledgment of the venue error, and its subsequent failure to rectify it, elevates this case's importance. 3. Discovery Violations and Volume of Material: Due to the Government's acknowledged discovery