Whether a pro se litigant's failure to strictly comply with Supreme Court formatting rules warrants dismissal of a petition for certiorari or justifies an extension of time

No question identified. : To Wo Chere of Court, | Sahn Tucleer Hardest H41533, Proceeding pro Se) RespactCally reqnests Yhis Coury and Honocabte Chief Justice, Jahn Ribas, 4, allow Wa Pekibiowe a corbinunce and edencion of tine. The “ peasoh are : B) The Rok oor hos Now (of. ter gr evi Yoo aller) hoen Novel lay Virginia Deparkraat of Ccarections ty use a Spe wrider instead of having ty honurite bis Writ of Certrocari.Singly out, ho must how downsize his Cose, < + . He Snprona, Coury Rules pawl double spacing, 171s singly 720 big, , 2). Tea Vien, Suprene. oy doacl his Reki Non {oe ogota\ 0h Seplember A /D0LS, However, his atttocray yoke Wim iieforeving thet Ne decision was denied on Seplember4) JOOS, hs wil See Tare following exhibit ihe did net recene Tr at Nottoway Corseckional, Comer’ Aaron CmacleedNCC-Moi toons” ov envelope ) uw \ Seplenoee 11,9035 —and 7k Wos wt signed. oy Kiara tostil September 19,9095. Tho real (40) day ark. would lor Decerber 3,009, The Pekitrnoe 1s Simdy ASKing b Qe an extension of Hine until What vould bo Ye (90) doy mmorvoh Upon recep of the decision ‘ The (qo) day Wark Crom Seglemoer IR, d0aS uou\d be Thureda ) December IZ) 302-5, 3). As a result oF the Thanksoiviny botidey Yow. wat receiving receioy of Yt Coté decision unt | Sephtnbel8, 2095, and now having to downsize rdsritten motion To Comply with US. Supreme Cont Rules vn a ye writer The Roki oae “seas wo other a \\ernattive but respec fall and humbly ask Veg Courk and Chief Dustice, Ochn Robert s b allow an CEXXknSion of Liye \pe. vor “ Th: 'S Pequestis within do C\0) days per Rute 20. weed We” agi Executed: Ne mage o Me Burkeyille Virginia , on te wil ds ra vember ; 5 a ae “ B3a OUNTUCKER HARDEE, Appa, \S. . COMMON\NEALTH OF VIRGINA, Appellee. Record No. 850 Court of Nerea th MC O4lo433-\ VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Cowt of Virginia held at the Supreme Cow Building in the City of Richmond on Thuwday, the 4th day of September, 2025. JOHN TUCKER HARDEE, APPELLANT, against Record No. 250114 Court of Appeals No. 0969-23-1 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, APPELLEE. FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Upon review of the record in this case and consideration of the argument submitted in support of the granting of an appeal, the Court refuses the petition for appeal. The Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk shall allow court-appointed counsel the fee set forth below and also counsel’s necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses. And it is ordered that the Commonwealth recover of the appellant the costs in this Court and in the courts below. Costs due the Commonwealth by appellant in Supreme Court of Virginia: Attorney’s fee $1,000.00 plus costs and expenses A Copy, Teste: Muriel-Theresa Pitney, Clerk Deputy Clerk