Whether a military judge's calculation of maximum authorized punishment constitutes a waivable error subject to general waiver principles in a court-martial proceeding

No question identified. : IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States JAKALIEN J. COOK, 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, Applicant requests an extension of time, to and including January 25, 2026, to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Unless an extension is granted, the deadline for filing the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari will be November 26, 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 in Applicant’s case on August 28, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction over Applicant under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(8). A copy of the CAAF’s opinion, of which Applicant seeks review, is attached to this application. 2. Following his conviction, Applicant appealed to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA). Applicant raised, among other errors, that the military judge and parties at trial incorrectly calculated the Applicant's maximum punishment, increasing Applicant’s punitive exposure. The AFCCA found the issue waived at trial. Applicant petitioned the CAAF to review the AFCCA’s decision. On August 28, 2025, the CAAF affirmed. 3. The printing process required for Applicant’s petition must be processed through a federal government agency (the Air Force), which has payment and processing requirements a private firm does not. The procurement process for a printing job cannot be forecasted with certainty, often has delays, and cuts approximately two weeks out of undersigned counsel’s time to finalize the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Federal agency budgetary limitations, and the government shutdown are also adding to the normal delays and constraints associated with processing printing through the Air Force. 4, Applicant thus requests an extension not exceeding sixty days for counsel to prepare a petition that fully addresses the issues raised by the decisions below and frames those issues in a manner that will be most helpful to the Court. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that an order be entered extending the time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari up to, and including, January 25, 2026. November 12, 2025 Respectfully submitted, y, JOHN M. FREDERICKS, Capt, USAF Counsel of Record Appellate Defense Division United States Air Force 1500 West Perimeter Road Suite 1100 Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762 (240) 612-4770 This opinion is subject to revision before publication. UNITED STATES Court OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES UNITED STATES Appellee v. Jakalien J. COOK, Airman United States Air Force, Appellant No. 24-0221 Crim. App. No. 40333 Argued May 20, 2025—Decided August 28, 2025 Military Judges: Christopher D. James (Article 30a, UCM, proceedings) and Colin P. Eichenberger (trial) For Appellant: Captain Michael J. Bruzik (argued); Lieutenant Colonel Allen S. Abrams, Major Megan R. Crouch, and Major Matthew Blyth. For Appellee: Captain Tyler L. Washburn (argued); Colonel Matthew D. Talcott, Lieutenant Colonel Jenny A. Liabenow, and Mary Ellen Payne, Esq. (on brief). Chief Judge OHLSON delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge SPARKS, Judge MAGGS, Judge HARDY, and Judge JOHNSON joined. United States v. Cook, No. 24-0221/AF Opinion of the Court Chief Judge OHLSON delivered the opinion of the Court. We hold that an appellant’s claim that a military judge incorrectly calculated the maximum authorized punishment for an offense—and thereby deprived the appellant of a fair sentencing proceeding—is subject to general waiver principles. We further hold that Appellant in the instant case waived such a claim at trial. Overview Appellant was convicted, among other offenses, of one specification of illegal t