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; and 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 1- 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' (Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Qo., 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 E2d 893, 895 (1990).

due-process-access-to-court