Whether a district court's determination of an armed career criminal status based on prior drug convictions arising from a single arrest and plea on the same day violates a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Erlinger v. United States

No question identified. : Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5, 22, and 30.3, Derrick Lorenzo Casey, Petitioner above named, respectfully requests a sixty (60) day extension of time, up to and including November 138, 2025, within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari from the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Casey has not previously sought an extension of time from this Court. Mr. Casey is filing this Application at least ten days before the filing deadline, which is September 15, 2025. See S. Ct. R. 13.5. The jurisdiction of this Court will be invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). In 2018, Mr. Casey pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). As was the practice at the time, the district court determined at sentencing, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, that Mr. Casey was an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). This was based in part on Mr. Casey’s three prior convictions for “serious drug offense[s].” See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). As to those convictions, Mr. Casey was arrested by state authorities on one day for all these offenses (February 10, 2004), and the pleas and sentencings for all offenses occurred on one day (February 24, 2005). These offenses were all the same offense (distribution of crack cocaine second), all occurred in the same jurisdiction, and all offenses occurred within twenty (20) days of each other. Mr. Casey was sentenced by state authorities to nine months’ imprisonment as to each offense, to be served concurrently. Based on the district court’s determination, Mr. Casey was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. Mr. Casey appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, raising the both the Fifth and Sixth Amendment errors present in his case based on Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). On June 16, 2025, the Fourth Circuit determined that on plain error review, Mr. Casey was unable to establish that the Erlinger error in his case, which was plain, affected his substantial rights. Mr. Casey did not seek rehearing. A copy of the Court of Appeals’ Opinion is attached as