Whether the appellate courts erred in denying a constitutional appeal on the false premise of lack of jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner asks this Court to review whether he was denied a constitutional appeal on the false : preliminary premise that the appellate courts — both : the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — lacked jurisdiction: ; a) because the appeal to the District Court was not based on a “final” order of the Bankruptcy Court nor did the order appealed qualify otherwise for ; ; jurisdictional purposes; — b) because the appeal to both courts was “moot;” and ; c) because the appeal to the Court of Appeals ; ; was improper as the latter may not review a District ; Court’s determination on whether a Bankruptcy Court’s order was a final order. } The importance of this matter, aside from | correcting the manifest injustice to Petitioner of | wrongfully applying jurisdictional principles to prevent an appeal on the merits, all as discussed below, is that the ruling by the Court of Appeals effectively guts a debtor’s mandated constitutional right to an appeal in a wide range of circumstances, including a fundamental misunderstanding of mootness. Finally, it is not farfetched to suggest that this case, if upheld or left alone, will drive another : nail in the already problematic coffin of an individual : debtor Chapter 11. The importance of this matter will be argued further by Petitioner in this brief. (ii)