Whether the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of a federal criminal procedural rule improperly limits a defendant's constitutional right to effective appellate review

is critically important to the everyday operations of the federal criminal justice system. In another recent case in the Fourth Circuit addressing this issue, the en banc court declined review, however, most of the Court’s judges signaled agreement with the patties’ constitutional argument while urging this Court to grant review. See United States v. Brown, 2023 WL 5089680, at *1 (4 Cir. Aug 9, 2023) (Heytens, J., joined by six additional judges) (“I hope the Supreme Court will step in to illuminate the path soon.”); id. at *2 (Niemeyer, J., joined by Senior Judge Floyd) (“urging the Supreme Court to give the courts of appeals guidance in this important matter”); id. at *3 (Wynn, J., joined by three additional judges) (“agree[ing] that the Supreme Court should take up the key question in this case”’). Second, counsel seeks an extension to allow for adequate time to research and draft a petition presenting this complicated issue of constitutional significance, while simultaneously balancing a currently heavy, court-appointed caseload. In addition to this case, counsel has a deadline in pending Fourth Circuit in United States v. Hutchinson, No. 23-4282 (reply brief due December 11, 2023); is preparing for a sentencing hearing, following a federal criminal jury trial, in the Eastern District of North Carolina set for December 14, 2023 in United States v. Valenzuela, No. 5:20-cr12-M-1; and is preparing to defend a client in a state court first-degree murder jury trial in the Johnston County Superior Court in Smithfield, North Carolina on January 18, 2024 in State v. Jenkins, No. 16-CRS-50403 In addition, counsel was appointed to defend a client in a state court capital jury trial that lasted approximately one month (from the beginning of October into November) this fall in State v. Buckman, No. 20-CRS-19-32, in the Dare County Superior Court in Manteo, North Carolina. Undersigned counsel is also trial counsel in numerous cases before the Eastern District of North Carolina, as well as state court, and has had to balance working from home regularly due to having two children who are both under 3 years old. For these reasons, counsel respectfully requests that an order be entered extending the time to petition for certiorari up to and including February 16, 2024. Respectfully submitted, Tarlton Law PLLC Raymond C. Tarlton Counsel of Record 3801 Lake Boone Trail, Ste 260 Raleigh, NC 27607 (919) 390-1278 December 7, 2023 Exhibit 1 United States v. McNeil, No. 22-4308 (4th Cir. 2023) (unpublished)