Whether a criminal defendant can knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to appeal a district court's sentencing errors as part of a plea agreement, and what limits exist on such appeal waivers

No question identified. : To the Honorable Samuel Alito, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: In accordance with this Court’s Rules 13.5, 22, 30.2, and 30.3, Applicant, Gregory Johnson respectfully requests that the time to file his petition for a writ of certiorari be extended for 60 days, up to and including Thursday, January 15, 2026. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 15, 2025. (Exhibit A). Absent an extension of time, the petition would be due on November 15, 2025. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). The request is unopposed. 1. This case arises from the sentencing of Gregory Johnson, Jr. following a federal prosecution. Mr. Johnson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Mr. Johnson allegedly waived his right to appeal any portion of the prosecution, including his sentence, prior to the District Court’s sentencing decision. The District Court determined that Mr. Johnson was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and sentenced him to enhanced guidelines, increasing his imprisonment range. 2. Mr. Johnson filed an appeal of his sentence with the Fifth Circuit, asserting that the District Court erred in classifying Mr. Johnson as a career offender because his 1997 Louisiana conviction for armed robbery was not a crime of violence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Government moved for dismissal of the appeal, urging that Mr. Johnson’s waiver was valid and enforceable and precluded Mr. Johnson from challenging his conviction or sentence. Mr. Johnson opposed the motion to dismiss and argued that the waiver provision in the plea agreement is not enforceable because the waiver of appeal for sentencing prior to sentencing is inherently unknowing and involuntary. 3. This case presents the question substantively identical to Devin Chaney v. United States of America, docket number 24-6543, which is already pending review before the Court pursuant to Devin Chaney’s petition for writ of certiorari. The question that will be presented by Mr. Johnson is substantially similar to the one presented by Mr. Chaney: “can a criminal defendant knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to appeal a district court’s yet-to-be-made errors as part of a plea agreement, and, if so, what are the limits on the validity and enforceability of such appeal waivers?” Petition for Writ of Certiorari at ii, Devin Chaney v. United States of America, No. 24-6543 (U.S. petition for cert. filed Feb. 6, 2025). Mr. Chaney’s petition has been distributed for conference twice, on September 29, 2025 and October 10, 2025. His petition is still under review. Mr. Chaney’s sentencing was substantially similar to Mr. Johnson’s. Mr. Chaney pleaded guilty to committing a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2133(a) and (d). Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 9, Chaney (No. 24-6543). The District Court determined that Mr. Chaney was a “career offender” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) upon recommendation from the U.S. Probation Office for a Louisiana state conviction for distribution of marijuana in violation of La. R.S. § 40:966(B)(2)(a). Id. at 9, 11. The application of the career-offender enhancement increased Mr. Chaney’s sentencing range by more than six years. Id. at 9. 4. Applicant will demonstrate that certiorari is warranted on the same question as Mr. Chaney: whether a criminal defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to appeal a district court’s yet-to-be-made errors as part of a plea agreement, and, if so, whether there are limits on the validity and enforceability of such appeal waivers. This question merits review because this Court has yet to rule on the validity of such waivers, and a complex circuit split exists amongst the Federal Circuits, with som