With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the extent Sutton may be said to conflict with these decisions, Sutton would have no precedential effect. See Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Troyer, 479 F.3d 1269, 1292 (10th Cir.2007) (stating the rule that where Tenth Circuit panel decisions conflict, the earliest decision controls). We need not definitively resolve the tension between Sutton and our prior precedents addressing the state-created danger theory, however, because Plaintiffs in this case do not raise Sutton’s alternative theory of relief as part of their danger creation claim. In fact, Plaintiffs do not cite Sutton in either of their appellate briefs and when questioned at oral argument about its alternative theory of relief, knew little, if anything, about it. See Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183, 1198 n. 2 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 8 . As a postscript to DeAnzona, we note the

A: recognizing that we will only consider those arguments presented in the petition for appeal and granted by this court
B: recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal
C: recognizing we will not consider theories on appeal alluded to in a vague or ambiguous manner
D: holding facta was not vague and ambiguous and that defendants conduct was willful
C.