Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14

(Petition, p. 11). Nevertheless, this Court's precedent makes clear that even in the
context of an appeal relating to a criminal sentence, excusable neglect is
insufficient. See Irwin, 498 U.S. at 95-96, 111 S. Ct. at 457, 112 L.Ed.2d 435
(1990).
Moreover, Ramirez's final deadline to submit his initial brief and appendix
was April 11, 2016 — over a year after the district court's entry of final judgment
from which he appealed. When Ramirez finally submitted his (purportedly)
corrected brief on April 11, 2016, it was deficient and lacked page numbers.
(A.51). Notably, Ramirez never succeeded in filing an appropriate appendix
during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit, on July 14,
2016, correctly denied his motion to reinstate the appeal, given Ramirez's multiple
delays, extensions of time, and disregard of the court's rules and deadlines, which
caused an enormous waste of resources for Bausch & Lomb and likely for the
appellate court as well. The circumstances relating to the untimely filing of
Ramirez's appendix were anything but extraordinary.
Nevertheless, Ramirez argues in his Petition that if the clerk had presented
Ramirez's April 12, 2016, motion to the appellate court for consideration, the court
"likely would have granted it and not dismissed the appeal." (Petition, p. 10).
Petitioner relies on authority decided in the context of bankruptcy, see In re
Beverly Mfg. Corp., 778 F.2d 666, 667 (11th Cir. 1985), for the proposition that
22