Whether an appellate court may invoke the invited error doctrine to preclude substantive review of a trial court's application of a novel legal standard for evaluating post-conviction recantation claims under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33

No question identified. : To the Honorable Justice Neil M. Gorsush, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: Applicant, Joseph Allen Maldonado-Passage, respectfully moves for an extension of sixty (60) days to file his petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Maldonado-Passage, No. 23-6207. The court of appeals issued its opinion on July 9, 2025, and entered its order denying rehearing en banc on October 1, 2025. Copies of the Judgment and Order denying Rehearing are attached at Exhibit A Absent an extension, the petition for a writ of certiorari is due on December 30, 2025. Applicant respectfully seeks an extension of time of sixty (60) days, up to and including February 28, 2026. The jurisdiction of this Court will be based on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). BACKGROUND This case arises from one of the nation’s most publicized federal prosecutions and presents enduring questions about the integrity of the criminal process, post-trial recantations, and the proper application of Brady, Giglio, Napue, and Kyles. Applicant—widely known from the documentary series Tiger King— was convicted in the Western District of Oklahoma of two counts of using interstate facilities in a murder-for-hire scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a), and five counts under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B), for euthanizing elderly tigers at his zoo. The government’s case on the murder-for-hire counts rested almost entirely on three cooperating witnesses—Allen Glover, James Garretson, and Jeff and Lauren Lowe—whose testimony supplied virtually all evidence of criminal intent and interstate agreement. No physical or independent evidence established a completed murder-for-hire plot or actual travel in interstate commerce to effect any killing. On the ESA counts, the prosecution framed humane euthanasia of aged and diseased tigers as criminal “takes,” presenting the killings as gratuitous and malicious rather than medically necessary. Applicant maintained that the tigers were euthanized due to age and illness, consistent with accepted veterinary practice, and that the government distorted both the factual and scientific context of those decisions. After trial and sentencing, multiple government witnesses executed detailed sworn recantations. Glover, Garretson, and Lauren Lowe (among others) attested that they had misrepresented key events, that government agents and prosecutors shaped their accounts, and that undisclosed promises and protections influenced their testimony. Veterinary and necropsy evidence emerged indicating that the tigers at issue were geriatric and suffering, corroborating Applicant’s trial defense on the ESA counts. Taken together, these materials suggested that the convictions rested on perjured testimony and undisclosed inducements at the very heart of the government’s case. In 20238, Applicant filed a motion for new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, supported by sworn recantations, veterinary records, and corroborating communications. He argued that: (1) the government knowingly used or failed to correct false testimony, in violation of Napue; (2) it suppressed impeachment material concerning witness deals and protections, in violation of Brady and Giglio; and (3) new veterinary and scientific evidence undermined the ESA convictions and should be treated as newly discovered evidence. He requested an evidentiary hearing under longstanding Tenth Circuit authority, United States v. Page, 828 F.2d 1476, 1478 (10th Cir. 1987), and United States v. Ramsey, 726 F.2d 601, 605 (10th Cir. 1984), recognizing that recantation-based claims turn on live credibility assessments. The district court denied the Rule 33 motion without an evidentiary hearing, applying the five-factor Berry probability test and concluding that the new evidence would not “probably” produce an acquit