Whether a one-for-one replacement of minority panel members in a military court-martial satisfies constitutional requirements for racial fairness in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky

No question identified. : IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States JAMES P. BAUMGARTNER, Applicant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Application to the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. for Extension of Time to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13(5), 22, and 30, the Petitioner, James P. Baumgartner, requests a 60-day extension of time, to and including November 17, 2025, to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Unless an extension is granted, the deadline for filing the petition for certiorari will be September 18, 2025. This Application is being filed more than 10 days before that date. In support of this application, Applicant states the following: 1. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) rendered its decision on June 20, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3). Copies of the CAAF’s order denying Applicant’s petition for a grant of review as well as the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision, which discusses the two issues Applicant petitioned the CAAF for a grant of review, are attached to this application. 2. In September 2022, Applicant was convicted, contrary to his pleas, by a panel of officer members of two specifications of sexual abuse of a child and three specifications of assault consummated by a battery upon a child under sixteen years. Entry of Judgment. Some of these specifications were consolidated after findings due to a ruling on unreasonable multiplication of charges. Jd. The same panel of members then sentenced Applicant to a reprimand, reduction in grade to E-1, confinement for three years, and a dishonorable discharge. Jd. 3. At the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA), Applicant challenged, inter alia, whether race impermissibly influenced how the panel members were selected based on the CAAF’s recent decision in United States v. Jeter, 84 M.J. 68 (C.A.A.F. 2023). In Jeter, the CAAF relied on this Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87 (1986), to hold, “lilt is impermissible to exclude or intentionally include prospective members based on their race.” 84 M.J. at 73. The AFCCA did not grant relief on this or any other issue raised. 4. Applicant petitioned the CAAF on two issues, one of which included the panel member selection issue. Applicant asked the CAAF to review whether a onefor-one swap of minorities complied with the panel member selection requirements under Jeter. The CAAF denied review. 5. Applicant’s Air Force Appellate Defense Counsel, Captain Samantha Castanien, has represented Applicant since the AFCCA. She is his primary counsel for the purposes of his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, but she is also detailed to 32 other cases. Since Applicant’s petition for grant of review was denied, counsel’s statutory obligations in representing other clients required her to review three records of trial to advise clients on appealing, prepare a supplement to a petition for a grant of review, file for reconsideration on a case decided by the CAAF, and complete briefing for an eleven-issue appeal at the AFCCA. While counsel has been working diligently in preparing this petition, Capt Castanien still has significant argument and briefing obligations between now and the current due date of the petition, to include preparing a petition for a new trial and beginning preparation for oral argument in United States v. Braum, USCA Dkt. No. 25-0046/AF (C.A.A.F.), scheduled for argument on October 8, 2025. 6. Additionally, as part of the basis for requesting an extension of time, the printing process required for Applicant’s petition must be processed through a federal government agency (the Air Force), which has payment and processing requirements a private firm does not. The procurement process for a printing job cannot be forecasted with certainty, often has delays, and cuts approximately two weeks out of undersigned counsel’s time to finalize the