Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14

filing by either party hence, the absence of a petition for either rehearing or
rehearing en banc." (emphasis added). This Court granted an extension of time for
Petitioner to file his Petition, apparently based on that representation.6 However,
the Petition does not discuss the September 7, 2016 order or even attach Ramirez's
August 1, 2016, motion that resulted in the September 7, 2016, order.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c), "any writ of certiorari intended to bring any
judgment or decree in a civil action, suit or proceeding before the Supreme Court
for review shall be taken or applied for within ninety days after the entry of such
judgment or decree." See also 17 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward
H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 4036, at 19 (3d ed.)
("Certiorari may be granted to review decisions that do not dispose of the pending
litigation, to examine orders that go merely to procedural steps before the court of
appeals, or to decide a case that has not even been considered by the court of
appeals.") Accordingly, if Ramirez wished to dispute the April 20, 2016, dismissal
and rejection of his motion, he should have done so within 90 days of that date.
Additionally, this Court's Rule 13.3 states:
The time to file a petition for writ of certiorari runs from the date of
entry of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, and not from the
issuance date of the mandate (or its equivalent under local practice).
But if a petition for re-hearing is timely filed in the lower court by any
6 Counsel for Petitioner, despite repeated requests, has declined to provide a copy of the Order
granting the extension of time. Several efforts to retrieve a copy of the Order directly from the
Court also were unsuccessful as the file reportedly was in chambers and therefore unavailable.
12