Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a military court from retrying a service member for the same offenses after a defective first trial record

No question identified. : IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States MAXWELL A. MATTHEW, 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 Applicant, Maxwell A. Matthew, 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 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(1). A copy of the CAAFP’s disposition order is attached to this application. 2. Applicant, a member of the United States Air Force, was originally tried by a military judge sitting alone. Consistent with his pleas, the military judge convicted Appellant of one specification of attempted distribution of child pornography and one specification of possession of child pornography, in violation of 10 U.S.C. §§ 880 and 934. The military judge found Applicant not guilty of distribution of child pornography in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 934 and entered a finding of not guilty. United States v. Matthew, No. ACM 39796 (reh), 2024 CCA LEXIS 460, at *1-2 (AF. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 31, 2024). 3. During the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) first review of Applicant’s record of trial, the court found the record was not verbatim as required by 10 U.S.C. § 854 and Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1103(b)(2)(B). The AFCCA set aside the findings and sentence, and returned the record to The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) to fix this error. Jd. at *2-3. 4. Applicant was tried a second time, for the same offenses for which he was previously tried, by a military judge sitting as a general court-martial. Consistent with Applicant’s conditional guilty plea, preserving him the ability to raise the issue of double jeopardy on appeal, the military judge convicted Applicant of one specification of possession of child pornography, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 934. The military judge dismissed one specification of distribution of child pornography for double jeopardy. The military judge sentenced Applicant to confinement for twelve months, reduction to the grade of Airman Basic (E-1), to forfeit all pay and allowances, and to be discharged from the military service with a bad conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the rehearing sentence in its entirety. Id. at 3. 5. Following his conviction, Applicant appealed to the AFCCA again. Applicant raised, among other legal errors, that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited a rehearing. Jd. at *4. The AFCCA found there was no double jeopardy violation. Jd. at *12. 6. Applicant petitioned the CAAF to review the AFCCA’s decision. The CAAF granted review of the case. On July 22, 2025, the CAAF issued its disposition order for the case and affirmed the AFCCA’s decision. 7. Applicant’s latest Air Force Appellate Defense Counsel, Major Megan Crouch, is Applicant’s military counsel for the purposes of his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, but she is also detailed to 19 other cases, including two cases that will also be filing a petition for a writ of certiorari before this Court. Since the CAAF’s disposition order, counsel’s statutory obligations in representing other clients required her to complete briefing in a variety of other cases before the AFCCA and the CAAF. 8. Additionally, the Air Force Appellate Defense Division currently does not have paralegal support to assist with formatting petitions for this Court or filings before any other court. Applicant’s appellate defense counsel will be responsible for formatting the lower court d