Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14

Simply calling a document a motion is insufficient under Rule 27; Petitioner
neglects to note that Rule 27(a)(2)(A) requires that a motion "state with
particularity the grounds for the motion, the relief sought, and the, legal argument
necessary to support it." F.R.A.P. 27(a)(2)(A). Here, Ramirez's April 12, 2016,
motion sought to explain the tardiness of the corrected appendix, noted that Bausch
& Lomb's counsel did not oppose his filing the motion a day late, and asked that
the appeal not be closed. (A.38-40). Substantively, Ramirez's motion was a
motion for extension of time to file his appendix. Ramirez cannot now recast his
April 12, 2017, untimely motion for extension of time as complying with Eleventh
Circuit Rule 42-2, by alleging, post facto, it was filed early. (Petition, p. 16.)
Further, according to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b), an
appellate court, for good cause, "may extend the time prescribed by these rules or
by its order to perform any act, or may permit an act to be done after that time
expires." F.R.A.P. 26(b) (emphasis added). However, nothing in the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellate court to grant, or even consider,
an untimely motion for extension of time. For the foregoing reasons, the clerk's
rejection of Ramirez's April 12, 2016, motion was appropriate.
B. Eleventh Circuit Rule 42-2 Does Not Conflict with the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Petitioner argues that Eleventh Circuit Rule 42-2 is an unreasonable exercise
of the Eleventh Circuit's supervisory and rulemaking powers because it conflicts
18