Whether ineffective assistance of counsel claims in military courts require a more searching review of trial defense counsel's performance when critical evidence is not presented at trial

No question identified. : IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States ADAM J. SHERMAN, 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, Adam J. Sherman, requests a sixty-day extension of time, to and including February 27, 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 December 29, 2025. This Application is being filed more than ten days before that date. In support of this application, Applicant states the following: 1. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) denied a petition for review on September 30, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(8). A copy of the CAAF’s order denying the petition for review, of which Applicant seeks review, is attached to this application. 2. Applicant, a member of the United States Air Force, was tried by a military judge sitting as a general court-martial. United States v. Sherman, No. ACM 40486, 2025 CCA LEXIS 206, at *1 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 12, 2025). Relevant to this appeal, Applicant was convicted of one charge and specification of rape of a child in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 920b. Id. Applicant was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for thirteen years, reduction to the grade of E-1, and a reprimand. Jd. at *1_2. 3. Following his conviction, Applicant appealed to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA). Applicants raised, among other legal errors, that his trial defense counsel were ineffective when they failed to present favorable evidence at trial and that his conviction was legally and factually insufficient. Jd. at *2. Following a post-trial evidentiary hearing, the AFCCA found Applicant’s conviction to be legally and factually sufficient, concluded his trial defense counsel were not ineffective, and affirmed the findings and sentence. Jd. at *11—-12, 16, 31. 4. Applicant petitioned the CAAF to review the AFCCAs’ decision. The CAAF denied Applicant’s petition for review. 5. Applicant’s Air Force Appellate Defense Counsel, Major Frederick Johnson, is also detailed to twenty-nine other cases. Since the CAAF’s denial of the petition for review in this case, counsel’s statutory obligations in representing other clients required him to complete briefing in a variety of other cases before the AFCCA and the CAAF as well as a petition for a writ of certiorari in another case before this Court. 6. 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 two lower court decisions for this petition and the other petitions to be filed before this Court. The reduction of paralegal support has severely hampered the Division’s ability to prepare petitions before this Court. 7. Further, the printing required for Applicants’ 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 are also adding to the normal delays and constraints associated with processing printing through the Air Force. 8. Applicant thus requests an extension not exceeding sixty days for counsel to prepare a petition that fully addresses the issues raised by the decision below and frames those issues in a manner that will be most helpful to the Court. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully re