Should the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' invocation of equitable-mootness foreclosing Petitioner's appeal of the Bankruptcy Court's denial of an exclusivity-extension be set aside as unconstitutional or, alternatively, should the doctrine be refined to provide a more appropriate standard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; Petitioner asks this Court to review two questions arising from closely related orders issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in two bankruptcy appeals taken in the same case. The orders are sufficiently related because the first question below arose in an appeal from the denial of an exclusivity extension but the Court of Appeals sua sponte invoked the equitable mootness doctrine to : dismiss the appeal. The conversion of Petitioner’s original Chapter 11 petition to Chapter 7 status was , the event that triggered the invocation of the equitable mootness doctrine. The appeal of the . conversion itself is the subject of the second question concerning the timing of the conversion order and so-called “jurisdictional” deadlines for appeal. ‘ 1. Should the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ invocation of equitable mootness foreclosing ; Petitioner’s appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s . denial of an exclusivity extension be set aside as unconstitutional or, alternatively, should. the doctrine be refined to provide a more appropriate standard. In either event, the judgment would be reversed, and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals. 2. Should the Court of Appeals apply equitable ; considerations — not to jurisdictional matters but to confusion actually caused by the : Bankruptcy Court in determining which of two (ii) . possible orders was the proper appealable order — to preserve Debtor’s unquestionable : and important constitutional right to appeal his conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 upon remand. : Both questions involve issues of constitutional mandates, this Court’s ultimate supervisory role in bankruptcy matters, and possibly the importance of adhering to a consistent national legal standard to avoid (existing) conflicts among the different federal courts. The importance of these matters will be argued further by Petitioner in this brief. : (iii)