Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require dismissal of criminal charges due to an excessive pre-trial delay violating the constitutional right to a speedy trial

and the interplay with Speedy Trial Act with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment challenges of due process violations. The validity of this claim in the case involves important constitutional protection and a fifty-one (51) month delay from arrest to trial in violation of the Speedy Trial constitutional protections. United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1981). Applicant Huertas constitutional arguments were based upon the Supreme Court four factors in Barker v. Wingo 407 U.S. 514 (1972) that were not properly weighed with presumptively prejudicial. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). The Opinion and Order is also against precedent. Attached hereto are copy of July 30, 2025, Opinion and Order affirming the district court’s judgment. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). REASONS EXTENSION IS JUSTIFIED Supreme Court Rule 13.5 provides that “An application to extend the time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified.” Sup. Ct. R. 13.5. The specific reasons why an extension of time is justified are as follows: 1) From a period of no less than 45 days, Applicant Huertas and inmates at United States Penitentiary Coleman I were under twenty-four (24) lockdown without any outside communication privileges, including, but not limited to: legal telephone calls, receipt of any legal mail and electronic CORR Link correspondence, commissary and other normal activities that made it impossible to have communication with the applicant and his undersigned CJA counsel of record. 2) The undersigned attorney has been suffering from chronic back and hip pain and ITB Iliotibial Band Syndrome, that has necessitated attending numerous specialist physician medical visits at the Mount Sinai Medical Center with Orthopedic Surgeon Doctor Fidler and Orthopedic NonSurgeon, Dr. Shama, Aventura, Florida; including numerous medical appointments with Dr. Monique Bain, Doctor of Acupuncture, Five Well Center, Coral Springs, Florida, and Dr. Alan Friedman, Doctor of Chiropractic, Pembroke Pines, Florida. 3) The Applicant Huertas was twenty (20) years when arrested, is not bilingual and has been in need of a medical operation but has not received the necessary treatment. 4) Most all of Applicant’s legal mail has not been delivered to him nor returned to the undersigned. 5) Applicant Huertas had intermittent contact with CJA counsel for some of the appellate court case but he has been periodically denied access to counsel, legal mail, and other legal resources as he has been segregated at USP Coleman I. 6) The nature of the case is complex and has competing interest in constitutional protections for Fifth & Sixth Amendments Right to a Speedy Trial. Finally, the failure of adequate legal representation is a collateral matter that will not be subject of this application. Accordingly, good cause exists for the additional time that is needed to adequately prepare and file the petition. NOTICE TO OPPOSING COUNSEL & CONSENT The United States Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico, attorney for respondent, has been notified of the intent to file this application and was requested to advise if there 4 was any objection to the filing. To date, no objection has been received. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown, Applicant Huertas respectfully r