Whether the military courts violated the Applicant's constitutional right to a speedy trial when they failed to provide meaningful analysis or relief for alleged speedy trial violations

No question identified. : IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States WILLIAM M. HILTON, 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, William M. Hilton, requests a 60-day extension of time, to and including March 15, 2026, to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Unless an extension is granted, the deadline for filing the petition for certiorari will be January 14, 2026. This Application is being filed less than 10 days before that date, however there is good cause in the nature of extraordinary circumstances to grant this extension request. In support of this application, Applicant states the following: 1. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) rendered its decision on October 16, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3). A copy of the CAAF’s order denying review, of which Applicant seeks review, is attached to this application. 2. Applicant, a member of the United States Air Force, was tried by general court-martial consisting of officer members. United States v. Hilton, No. ACM 40500, 2025 CCA LEXIS 142, at *2 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2025). Applicant was convicted of one charge of being drunk on duty, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 912, one charge of unlawful entry, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 929, and three charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 933. Jd. at *1-2. Applicant was sentenced to a dismissal, confinement for 40 months, and a reprimand. Id. at *2. 3. On appeal to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (Air Force Court), Applicant raised several issues, including that his statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial. /d. The Air Force Court provided no relief nor analysis for the speedy trial violations. 4. Applicant petitioned the CAAF to review the Air Force Court’s decision. On October 16, 2026, the CAAF denied the petition for grant of review. 5. Applicant’s Air Force Appellate Defense Counsel, Major Trevor Ward, is Applicant’s counsel for the purposes of his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, but he is also detailed to 26 other cases. Since the CAAF’s decision declining to grant review, counsel’s statutory obligations in representing other clients required him to complete briefing in a variety of other cases before the Air Force Court and the CAAF. Additionally, the undersigned counsel was recently detailed to this Applicant’s case. This requires undersigned counsel to review nearly four thousand pages of Applicant’s record, as well as familiarize himself with the legal issues raised below. 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 Air Force Court decision 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 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. The close of the fiscal year and 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 a 60-day extension for counsel to prepare a petition that fully addresses the issues raised by the decisi