Whether a federal court can review a collateral challenge to a restitution order under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 when the defendant is no longer in custody

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI On behalf of Petitioner, Fred Davis Clark, Jr., and pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5 and 30, I respectfully apply to Associate Justice Thomas as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and request a 60-day extension of time from January 26, 2026 until March 27, 2026, or from March 17, 2026 until May 18, 2026, whichever is later, to file the petition for a writ of certiorari. See infra J§ 7-9. The grounds are my workload, the extensive record, and the fact that the petition will seek review of what appears at first blush to be two clear circuit splits (1-3 and 5-2) regarding habeas issues. See infra §|{| 13-16. 1. Petitioner was a successful real estate developer. Initially, his company grossed $750 million in revenue, including $300 million in real estate sales. Alas, during the Great Recession, his enterprise failed. At first, he prevailed in an SEC civil case against him, SEC v. Graham, 21 F. Supp. 3d 1300, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded, 823 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2016). But then, he was prosecuted under a novel bank fraud theory. See D.Ct. Doc. 351, U.S. v. Clark, No. 4:13-cr-10034 (S.D. Fla.). Petitioner was convicted, sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment, and ordered to repay $179,076,942 in restitution and forfeit $308,878,581. See D.Ct. Docs. 524, 630 & 631, U.S. v. Clark, No. 4:13-cr-10034 (S.D. Fla.). 2. On direct appeal, Petitioner challenged his conviction. See C.A. Docs. 47 & 89, U.S. v. Clark, Nos. 16-10811 & 16-14410 (11th Cir.). But because there were so many grounds on which to challenge his conviction, his appellant’s brief and reply brief lacked room to challenge his forfeiture order or restitution award. See id. After briefing and oral argument concluded, see C.A. Docs. 127 & 128, U.S. v. Clark, Nos. 16-10811 & 16-14410 (11th Cir.), President Trump commuted Petitioner’s sentence on January 13, 2021, but left Petitioner’s forfeiture order and restitution award intact. C.A. Doc. 133, U.S. v. Clark, Nos. 16-10811 & 16-14410 (11th Cir.). A copy of that commutation order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. At that point, Petitioner sought leave from the Eleventh Circuit, over the government’s opposition, to provide supplemental briefing regarding his forfeiture order and restitution award. See C.A. Docs. 141 & 144, U.S. v. Clark, Nos. 1610811 & 16-14410 (11th Cir.). As Petitioner explained, if leave were granted, he intended to brief those financial issues while voluntarily dismissing or withdrawing all of his other arguments. See C.A. Doc. 141 at 7-24, U.S. v. Clark, Nos. 16-10811 & 1614410 (11th Cir.). A copy of that motion for leave, which describes some of the substantive problems with the forfeiture order and restitution award, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. See Sup. Ct. R. 13.5. 4. The Eleventh Circuit denied Petitioner’s request. C.A. Doc. 145, U.S. v. Clark, Nos. 16-10811 & 16-14410 (11th Cir.). So, on advice of counsel, Petitioner dismissed his appeal in its entirety. See C.A. Docs. 146 & 148, U.S. v. Clark, Nos. 1610811 & 16-14410 (11th Cir.). 5. Thereafter, Petitioner challenged his forfeiture order and restitution award by pursuing collateral relief. See D.Ct. Doc. 1, Clark v. U.S., No. 4:23-cv-10027 (S.D. Fla.). The government opposed, and Petitioner replied. D.Ct. Docs. 4.6 & 4.9, Clark v. U.S., No. 4:23-cv-10027 (S.D. Fla.). Eventually, the Southern District of Florida denied relief, denied a certificate of appealability, and entered judgment. See D.Ct. Docs. 5 & 6, Clark v. U.S., No. 4:23-cv-10027 (S8.D. Fla.). In particular, the order denying relief noted, “While Movant cites to cases from other Circuits that discuss the possibility of raising an argument that restitution orders are not categorically excluded from § 2255, the Court sees no reason to disturb the well-set precedent of the Eleventh Circuit.” D.Ct. Doc.