Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has statutory authority to review the factual sufficiency of military court-martial convictions under Article 66(d)(1)(B) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

No question identified. : IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States LOGAN A. MCLEOD, 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, Logan A. McLeod, requests a 60-day extension of time, to and including November 8, 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 9, 2025. This Application is being filed more than 10 days before that date. In support of this application, Applicant provides the following: 1. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) rendered its decision on June 11, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3). Copies of the CAAF’s order granting review as well as the CAAF and AFCCA decisions, of which Applicant seeks review, are attached to this application. 2. Applicant, a member of the United States Air Force, entered mixed pleas at his court-martial. A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Applicant, consistent with his pleas, of one specification of attempted wrongful possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, one specification of attempted rape, two specifications of attempted kidnapping, one specification of attempted rape of a child, three specifications of attempted aggravated assault upon a person under the age of sixteen, one specification of attempted production of child pornography, one specification of attempted distribution of child pornography, and one specification of obstruction of justice in violation of Articles 80 and 131b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 931b. Contrary to his pleas, the military judge convicted Applicant of one specification of attempted premeditated murder, one specification of attempted conspiracy to rape, one specification of attempted conspiracy to kidnap, two specifications of attempted aggravated assault of a minor, and one specification of attempted assault consummated by a battery upon a person under the age of sixteen in violation of Article 80, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 880. The military judge sentenced Applicant to a reprimand, reduction to E-1, 35 years’ confinement, and a dishonorable discharge. The military judge credited Applicant with 341 days of pretrial confinement credit. 3. At the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA), Applicant challenged, inter alia, whether the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the findings of guilt for attempted murder of “Sarah” and attempted conspiracies to rape and kidnap AB. On May 1, 2024, the AFCCA affirmed the findings and a modified sentence after adjusting for an incorrect maximum confinement term for one of Applicant’s convictions. 4. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) granted review to determine (1) whether the CAAF has statutory authority to decide whether a conviction is factually sufficient, (2) whether Applicant’s conviction for attempted murder of “Sarah” and attempted conspiracies to rape and kidnap AB are factually and legally sufficient, and (3) whether the lower court erroneously interpreted and applied the amended factual sufficiency standard under Article 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ. In a two-page order on June 11, 2025, the CAAF affirmed the AFCCA’s decision, concluding that (1) the CAAF does not have statutory authority to decide whether a conviction is factually sufficient, (2) Applicant’s conviction for attempted murder of “Sarah” and attempted conspiracies to rape and kidnap AB were legally sufficient, and (3) assuming the lower court erroneously interpreted and applied the amended factual sufficiency standard under Article 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ, any error was harmless. 5. Ms. Megan Marinos, has represented Applicant since AFCCA, though civilian counsel als