Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14

party, or if the lower court appropriately entertains an untimely
petition for rehearing or sua sponte considers rehearing, the time to
file the petition for a writ of certiorari for all parties (whether or not
they requested rehearing or joined in the petition for rehearing) runs
from the date of the denial of rehearing or, if rehearing is granted, the
subsequent entry of judgment.
S. Ct. R. 13.3. As Ramirez concedes in his motion for extension of time to file his
Petition, he never sought rehearing. (R.A.21). Accordingly, his situation does not
meet any of this Court's exceptions to the 90-day time limit contained in Rule
13.3. See S. Ct R. 13.3.
And despite stating in his November 21, 2016, motion for extension of time,
that he was seeking a writ of certiorari based on an order dated September 7, 2016,
Ramirez's Petition only disputes the April 20, 2016, order of dismissal.
Petitioner's attempt, beginning on November 21, 2016, to seek a writ of certiorari
based on the Eleventh Circuit's April 20, 2016, dismissal order and rejection of his
April 12, 2016, motion, is therefore untimely.
Similarly, Ramirez has not demonstrated entitlement to a writ of mandamus
and appears to have included the request, by making a comment in a footnote, in an
attempt to avoid or excuse the fact of his tardy Petition. (Petition, p. 10, n.5.) Not
only has Ramirez failed to follow the procedures in Supreme Court Rule 20.3 to
properly request such a writ, he has failed, for all of the reasons discussed herein,
to meet his burden to show his "right to issuance of the writ is 'clear and
indisputable." Cheney v. US. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 124 S. Ct. 2576,
13