due-process-access-to-court

No question identified. : PETITION TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FOR CERTIORARI TO HEAR SELLS' APPEAL ON QUESTION(S): Question #1: Did the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, violate Sells' . Right to ‘Due Process' and ‘access to a Court of Law' guaranteed by Amendments: V, : VI, ahd XIV, of the United States Constitution, by ‘Dismissing’ Sells' 18 U.S.C. § 3742 ' Appeal without adjudication, ‘ruling contrary to', and ‘making unreasonable application of [United States Supreme Court Law] in Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) concerning FRAP!Rule 3(c)(1)(B), and Haines v._ Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-521, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), for the sole purpose of avoiding having to 'Hear' and adjudicate Sells' lawfully brought [with merit] claim(s), concerning the violation of the 'terms' of Sells Federal 'Plea Agreement’ in '04-CR-0057-TCK', N.D. Okla. (2004), by the indirect effects of ‘other! Court rulings, which Sells did not seek to challenge with this filing? This ruling being being 'contrary to other, long established United States Supreme Court law' (Jorres v. Oakland ' Seavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317, 101 L. Ed. 2D 285, 108 S. Ct. 2405(1988)), as well as being in direct conflict with other ‘circuit courts' precedent. See: Smith v. Galley, 919 F.2d 898, 895 (1990). . Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 5 , PARTIES TO PROCEEDING: MARK E. SELLS, Petitioner; UNITED STATES, Respondent,; and ‘interested party' [in Opposition]: STATE of OKLAHOMA: who: (has failed to respond to all filings and has not made 'Entry of Appearance’). LIST OF RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS: 1. Appellant’s Petition to re-Hear Appeal (no._23-5101) 'En Banc to U.S. 10% Cir., dtd 9-26-2023. | 2. U.S. 10 Cir. Order 'Dismissing Sells Appeal' in 'United States v, Sells’, appeal no. 28-610], dtd 9-15-23.