Jennesis V. Dominguez-Garcia v. United States
Whether a nonviolent special court-martial conviction can constitutionally deprive an individual of their Second Amendment right to bear arms
No question identified. : IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States JENNESIS V. DOMINGUEZ-GARCIA, 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, Jennesis V. Dominguez-Garcia, requests a 60-day extension of time, to and including December 19, 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 20, 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 July 22, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3). Copies of the CAAF’s order granting review and its decision, the latter of which Applicant is seeking review, is attached to this application. 2. In April 2021, Applicant pleaded guilty by exceptions and substitutions to one specification of “negligent” dereliction of duty, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 892, which was the lesser included offense of the charged offense of “willful” dereliction of duty. United States v. Dominguez-Garcia, No. ACM $32694,, at *4 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 11, 2022). She also pleaded guilty to one specification of simple assault with an unloaded firearm, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 928. Jd. Applicant pleaded not guilty to the greater offense of willful dereliction of duty, which Applicant was ultimately acquitted of, and one specification of communication of a threat, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 915, which the Government later withdrew and dismissed. Jd. The military judge sentenced Applicant to a reprimand, reduction to the grade of E-1, confinement for seven days, and a bad-conduct discharge. Jd. at *4-5. 3. On October 11, 2022, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) affirmed the findings as correct in law and fact but set aside the sentence. Jd. at *58. A rehearing was authorized, but the convening authority found a rehearing on the sentence to be impracticable and approved a sentence of no punishment. United States v. Dominguez-Garcia, No. ACM 832694 (f rev), 2024 LX 153340, at *1-2 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 31, 2024). On her second appeal to the AFCCA, Applicant raised a single issue: “whether the misapplication of 18 U.S.C. § 922 to [Applicant] unconstitutionally deprived her of her right to bear arms based on her nonviolent conviction at a special court-martial.” Jd. at *2. The AFCCA found this issue outside its authority to review and affirmed the new sentence. Jd. 4. Applicant petitioned the CAAF on the firearm prohibition issue, and the CAAF granted review. United States v. Dominguez-Garcia, 85 M.J. 186 (C.A.A.F. 2024). Following the CAAF’s decision in United States v. Johnson, ___M.J. _, No. 240004/SF, 2025 LX 121958 (C.A.A.F. June 24, 2025), wherein the CAAF found that it lacked authority to act on the firearms prohibition contained in the record of trial, the CAAF affirmed the AFCCA’s decision. United States v. Dominguez-Garcia, __ MJ. __, No. 24-0183/AF, 2025 LX 232388 (C.A.A.F. July 22, 2025). 5. Applicant’s current Air Force Appellate Defense Counsel, Captain Samantha Castanien, has represented Applicant since her second appeal to the AFCCA. Captain Castanien is Applicant’s primary counsel for Applicant’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, but Capt Castanien is also detailed to 21 other cases. Following the CAAF’s denial of relief for Applicant, 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 in a different case at the CAAF, respond to a petition for reconsideration filed by the United States at the C