course of a conspiracy. 9 . "In those cases,” one commentator has explained, "participation by two people ... is already indicated, so the social harm of a criminal combination has already been realized and punishment for conspiracy to do the same act would be an unfair doubling.” John L. Costello, Virginia Criminal Law and Procedure § 17.3, at 224 (3d ed.2002). 10 . Appellant further argues in her brief, as an aside, that the trial court’s denial of her request to allow a proffer for the record of Dr. Deem’s specific answers to her questions constitutes an independent ground for reversal. Because this issue was not presented in a "Question Presented" for which an appeal was granted, we do not address it here. See Parker v. Commonwealth, 42 Va.App. 358, 373, 592 S.E.2d 358, 366 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Hulbert had not yet been tried. Indeed,
holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal recognizing that we will only consider those arguments presented in the petition for appeal and granted by this court holding that subject to limited exceptions this court will not consider issues not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court