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
2587, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). 2. T h e Petition Does Not Satisfy This Court's Requirements for Granting Certiorari. Even if this Court determines Ramirez's Petition is timely, there are no compelling reasons to grant the Petition. Supreme Court Rule 10 provides that "[a] petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons." Sup. Ct. R. 10. Rule 10 lists the following examples of the types of cases in which the Court may grant certiorari: (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power; (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals; (c) a state court or United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. 14
- Page 1 and 2: Ogletree Deakins Karen M. Morinelli
- Page 3 and 4: QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. D o Federal
- Page 5 and 6: QUESTIONS PRESENTEDi TABLE OF CONTE
- Page 7 and 8: Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
- Page 9 and 10: JURISDICTION Ramirez's Petition for
- Page 11 and 12: STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RULES INVO
- Page 13 and 14: After remand, the district court ag
- Page 15 and 16: and to "find that the circumstances
- Page 17 and 18: On November 21, 2016, Ramirez sough
- Page 19: filing by either party hence, the a
- Page 23 and 24: F.3d 1337, 1341 n.2 (11th Cir. 2011
- Page 25 and 26: Simply calling a document a motion
- Page 27 and 28: motion to set aside the dismissal a
- Page 29 and 30: (Petition, p. 11). Nevertheless, th
- Page 31 and 32: CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT For al
- Page 33 and 34: NO. 16-7880 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
- Page 35 and 36: Dated March 13, 2017. Respectfully
- Page 37 and 38: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 12/17/20
- Page 39 and 40: R.A. 4 Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 0
- Page 41 and 42: P A Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 01/0
- Page 43 and 44: PA R Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 01/
- Page 45 and 46: D A 1 A Case: 12-14679 Date Filed:
- Page 47 and 48: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 02/11/20
- Page 49 and 50: Case: 15-11914 Date Filed: 02/16/20
- Page 51 and 52: Case: 15-11914 Date Filed: 02/16/20
- Page 53 and 54: Qase: 15-11914 IDAte [CASE: 15-1191
- Page 55 and 56: 'RES UNITED STATES 1 POSTAL SERVICF
- Page 57 and 58: The order of the United States Cour
- Page 59 and 60: A No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UN
- Page 61 and 62: 1) A ')4 Rule 31-2. Briefs and Appe
- Page 63 and 64: 0 A 1 4 Rule 42-2. Dismissal in a C
- Page 65 and 66: U.S.C. Title 28- JUDICIARY AND JUDI
- Page 67 and 68: U.S.C. Title 28- JUDICIARY AND JUDI
- Page 69 and 70: U.S.C. Title 28- JUDICIARY AND JUDI
2587, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for<br />
Northern Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976).<br />
2. T h e Petition Does Not Satisfy This Court's Requirements for<br />
Granting Certiorari.<br />
Even if this Court determines Ramirez's Petition is timely, there are no<br />
compelling reasons to grant the Petition. Supreme Court Rule 10 provides that "[a]<br />
petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons." Sup.<br />
Ct. R. 10. Rule 10 lists the following examples of the types of cases in which the<br />
Court may grant certiorari:<br />
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision<br />
in conflict with the decision of another United States<br />
court of appeals on the same important matter; has<br />
decided an important federal question in a way that<br />
conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or<br />
has so far departed from the accepted <strong>and</strong> usual course of<br />
judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a<br />
lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's<br />
supervisory power;<br />
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important<br />
federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision<br />
of another state court of last resort or of a United States<br />
court of appeals;<br />
(c) a state court or United States court of appeals has<br />
decided an important question of federal law that has not<br />
been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided<br />
an important federal question in a way that conflicts with<br />
relevant decisions of this Court.<br />
<strong>14</strong>
Change language