Whether a pro se prisoner's motion for extension of time to file a writ of certiorari should be granted when administrative errors and communication challenges prevented timely filing

No question identified. : * Upton, Mickits & Heymann, LLP, (210)881-3080, 7800 I-10 West, Ste. 740, Lincoln Center, San Antonio, TX 78230 In addition to these extraordinary circumstances the following has occurred and was outside of Puente's controls as described in this timeline: * November 4, 2024 Puentes' ORIGINAL Motion for Extension of Time mailed to SCOTUS * December 5, 2024 SCOTUS CLERK Redmond K. Barnes returns for the following reasons: The lower court opinion must be appended. Rule 13.5 The order denying rehearing must be appended. Rule 13.5 It is impossible to determine the timeliness of your application for an extension of time without the lower court opinions. A copy of the corrected application must be served on opposing counsel. week This correspondence was never received by Puente and can be verified through the WAINWRIGHT UNIT Prison legal mail system. * In January 2025 Puente sent letter to SCOITUS requested update with no reply. * February 24, 2025 a Clerk returned a phone call to Mr.Edward T. Gorham (775)350-6724 and explained a "corrections" letter was mailed out on December 5, 2024. * February 25, 2025 Puente writes SCOIUS to get a copy of the "corrections" letter. * April 16, 2025 Puente received "corrections" letter (Attached: postmarked 04/09/2025) (only copy sent to SCOTUS) Puente has made the required corrections as requested. By all appearences this Motion is untimely at no fault of Puentes' own. Under Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 402 US 962 (1971) "A Justice of the Supreme Court for good cause show may extend the time for applying for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding sixty days." 28 U.S.C.§ 2102(c). Puente has been diligent through this whole process. This request is not designed to harass the Respondent, this Court, nor umnecessarily delay these proceedings, but to ensure Puente is fully able to address the issues properly. Furthermore, the Respondent is in no way prejudiced as Puente is incarcerated and operating under controlled and severe limitations. Puente is a layman and untrained in all aspects of legal research and writing. Accordingly, Puente respectfully requests an extension of time of sixty (60) days from April 16, 2025 up to and including June 13, 2025 to continue to seek counsel or to file said WOC. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Puente respectfully requests that this Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. UNSWORN DECLARATION I, Luis Fernando Puente, certify, verify, and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1746. Respectfully Submitted, Luis Fernando Puente #2306524 Wainwright Unit 2665 Jovian Motley Blvd. Lovelady, Texas 75851 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, do hereby certify that a carbon copy of the foregoing pleading was served by placing in the U.S. Mail postage pre-paid on the 21st day of April, 2025, addressed to: Attorney General of Texas PO BOX 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Executed on this the 20th day of April, 2025. Luis Fernando Puente Petitioner Pro se Case: 24-40190 Document: 33-2 Page:1 Date rica: ogsheol | ‘ / Gnuited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED New sre September 5, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Luis FERNANDO PUENTE, Clerk Petitioner —Appellant, versus Bossy LuMPKIN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent — Appellee. Application for Certificate of Appealability the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:23-CV-52 ORDER: Luis Fernando Puente, Texas prisoner # 02306524, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years of age and possession of child pornography. In his COA motion, Dixon argues that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel failed to rai