Whether a federal appellate court can deny a motion to seal judicial records without providing a substantive explanation for its denial

No question identified. : application is being filed more than ten (10) days before that deadline, as required by Supreme Court Rule 30.2. JUDGMENT SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED Petitioner seeks review of the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, entered October 6, 2025, in Case No. 24-4047. In that decision, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's extremely cursory, denial of Petitioner's extensively argued motion to seal judicial records. A copy of the unbelievable marginalia case sealing denial in the Ohio Northern District as well as the Sixth Circuit's Opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit A and B. After the Appeals Court ruled, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing for further review in Appeals fourteen days late by mistake on November 3, 2025, believing mistakenly that the time allowed for a Panel Rehearing request would analogously match the 28-day time allowed for a Motion for Reconsideration in District Court instead of be shortened and quickened to 14-days. The Petitioner may never have received a response to his late Panel Rehearing Request — no response appears in the public docket or in his forwarded mail and oddly the Petition for Panel Rehearing that Petitioner sent the 6th Circuit has not ever appeared in the public docket to my knowledge either. The mailing of the Panel Rehearing Petition was postmarked on 02025-11403 (November 3rd) and delivered one week later on 02025-11 J 10 (November 10th). Immediately below you will see my certified mail receipt for the Rehearing Request and attached at the end of this document you will see the USPS delivery? confirmation. It was delivered. Without calling into question mysterious Court processes I myst assume now that the Petition for Panel Rehearing has been denied or would have been denied, or would have been denied for purposes of allowing this to accelerate toward your final review, and that | must proceed on a timely or time-adjusted basis with this SCOTUS writ of certiorari stage. KYeA & ahh be be beater SJ UNITED S IAT _ Bad oe SERVICE. p 0 0 Good cause exists for the requested extension for the following reasons: 1. Petitioner's Civic and Religious Emergency Response Work. Petitioner is the founder and CEO of Lifesaver Labs Public Benefit Corporation, which is actively developing Naybor SOS™ (also known as Neighbor 911™), a mobile and server application designed to train, alert, and dispatch neighbors either sua sponte or through a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) dispatcher to act as emergency* Good Samaritan for community members experiencing emergency or critical conditions for which great speed of response, with a dose of wisdom and endemic or trained common sense, is often more immediately pivotal than great skill that’s pro-level but minutes more slowly arriving. This technology aims to address critical gaps in emergency response times by enabling immediate assistance while professional first responders are en route. The Petitioner hopes that this technology can be provided to all, not just locally in Palm Beach County, or statewide in Florida, or nationally in the United States, but globally eventually, so that no matter where a person was born or resides, no matter their local, state, or national citizenship(s), and no matter where they travel to, they can rely on a Naybor Emergency Aid Response (NEAR) system accessible through the same app they use at home during their years abroad, sojourns, or travels. For full disclosure, the Petitioner also hopes to extend this technology into interactional domains that professional responders do not traditionally go, for Plaintiff argues reckless lack of exercise of proper government mandate, such as, as one example, dissuading cigarette lightings and encouraging sustained quit grit for corpsing harmful nicotine addictions, or gathering at school boards or youth tackle football games to dissuade officers of the state or those receiving any public funds from al