Whether a military court's general verdict of guilt in a sexual misconduct case can be challenged based on recent legal changes affecting the soundness of the conviction

No question identified. : IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States DEVIN W. JOHNSON, 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, Devin W. Johnson, requests a 60-day extension of time, to and including December 11, 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 October 12, 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 24, 2025. A timely petition for reconsideration was filed, which was denied on July 14, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3). Copies of the CAAF’s order granting review, order specifying additional issues for briefing, and decision, of which Applicant seeks review, as well as the CAAF’s order denying reconsideration, are attached to this application. 2. In October 2021, a panel of officer members convicted Applicant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact, while acquitting him of two other specifications of sexual misconduct. United States v. Johnson, No. ACM 40257, 2023 LX 35789, at *1 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 9, 2023). The same panel of members then sentenced Applicant to six months of confinement, a bad-conduct discharge, a reprimand, and reduction in grade to E-1. United States v. Johnson, __M.J.__, No. 24-0004/SF, 2025 LX 121958, at *6 (C.A.A.F. June 24, 2025) 3. At the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA), Applicant raised four assignments of error dealing with whether he was properly convicted of the charged offense. Johnson, No. ACM 40257, 2023 LX 35789, at *2. The AFCCA did not grant Applicant any relief. Id. 4. Applicant petitioned the CAAF on two issues, which were raised by his previous attorney. Applicant also personally raised two issues. The two issues Applicant personally raised and one of the issues his previous attorney raised dealt with the soundness of the conviction, highlighting constitutional issues stemming from Applicant’s apparent general verdict. The CAAF did not grant on these issues, but did grant on another issue dealing with jurisdiction and Applicant’s right to seek relief for a firearm prohibition. The CAAF found it lacked authority to act on the granted issue and affirmed the AFCCA’s decision. 5. Applicant’s current Air Force Appellate Defense Counsel, Captain Samantha Castanien, began representing Applicant at the CAAF, after the CAAF had granted on the requested firearm prohibition issue. While representing Applicant at this phase, she discovered that recent changes in the law impacted the issues previously raised but of which were not granted at the CAAF. An argument on how this change in the law affected Applicant’s general verdict issue was brought before the CAAF in briefing, at oral argument, and was the basis for the petition for reconsideration that the CAAF denied. Another case currently before the CAAF on a petition for reconsideration has the same issue as Applicant, but the CAAF has not yet ruled on the petition for reconsideration (although the CAAF could rule on that petition for reconsideration as soon as today). 6. Applicant’s justification for requesting a 60-day extension is two-fold. First, part of the justification is due to the case currently pending a petition for reconsideration at the CAAF on the same issue. If reconsideration is denied, Applicant may be a part of a joint petition to this Court, which could not be completed by the current deadline. If reconsideration is granted, the CAAF’s resolution of this issue may alter Applicant’s petition. Second, Applicant’s counsel is his primary co