UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GLENDA JOHNSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

------------------------------ 

R. WAYNE KLEIN, 

 Receiver - Appellee. 

No. 21-4080 

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00828-DN) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before PHILLIPS, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Glenda Johnson appeals an order of the district court awarding attorney fees to 

Receiver R. Wayne Klein after finding her in contempt of its receivership order. 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 2, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-4080 Document: 010110651694 Date Filed: 03/02/2022 Page: 1
2 

BACKGROUND 

This is one of many appeals arising from a civil proceeding in which the 

United States alleged, and the district court ultimately found, that three companies—

RaPower3, LLC; International Automated Systems, Inc.; and LTB1, LLC—and two 

individuals—Neldon Johnson and R. Gregory Shephard—operated a fraudulent solar 

energy tax scheme. The district court ordered the appointment of a receiver for the 

three entities, disgorgement of all gross receipts, and cessation of all business 

operations. We affirmed the court’s findings of fraud, disgorgement order, and 

injunction in United States v. RaPower-3, LLC, 960 F.3d 1240, 1243–44 (10th 

Cir. 2020). 

In its “Corrected Receivership Order,”1

 the court prohibited all persons 

receiving notice of it from taking any action that would interfere with the Receiver’s 

duties. The order specifically prohibited creating or enforcing liens on receivership 

property. Despite being subject to the order, Ms. Johnson, the wife of Defendant 

Neldon Johnson, filed a “Notice of Lien” on receivership property in Millard County, 

Utah, and brought suit in state court against the buyer of the property after the 

court-approved sale of the property by the Receiver. Ms. Johnson later filed 

additional liens against receivership property in Utah and Texas. 

The court ordered Ms. Johnson to release the liens and dismiss the lawsuit to 

enforce the lien. When she did not do so, the Receiver filed a “Notice of 

1

 The court issued the first receivership order on October 31, 2018. It issued 

the Corrected Receivership Order one day later to revise some formatting errors. 

Appellate Case: 21-4080 Document: 010110651694 Date Filed: 03/02/2022 Page: 2
3 

Non-Compliance” with the district court. Ms. Johnson responded with a declaration 

asserting she lacked the authority to release the liens. The Receiver contested this 

assertion, and the district court entered an order requiring Ms. Johnson to submit 

specific information under oath to support her claim that she could not comply with 

the court’s earlier order to release the liens. She submitted a second declaration, and 

the Receiver again contested her assertion that she did not have authority to release 

the liens. 

The court entered an order invalidating the liens and ordering the Receiver to 

investigate the creation of the liens and interference with his work. The Receiver did 

so and then sought an order requiring Ms. Johnson to show cause why the court 

should not hold her in contempt. On April 14, 2021, the court entered an order 

finding Ms. Johnson in contempt of court and holding her liable for the resulting 

costs and attorney fees the Receiver incurred. The Receiver submitted a motion for 

attorney fees and costs on May 28, 2021. Ms. Johnson did not file a response to this 

motion. On June 22, 2021, the court ordered Ms. Johnson to pay the Receiver for 

$53,518.34. Ms. Johnson appeals this order. 

DISCUSSION 

Because Ms. Johnson is pro se, we construe her arguments liberally, but we 

“cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [her] attorney in constructing 

arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 

425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). “We review a district court’s decision on 

whether to award attorney fees for abuse of discretion, but we review de novo the 

Appellate Case: 21-4080 Document: 010110651694 Date Filed: 03/02/2022 Page: 3
4 

district court’s application of the legal principles underlying that decision.” John 

Zink Co. v. Zink, 241 F.3d 1256, 1261 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

In her opening brief, Ms. Johnson presents 22 separate issues for review. 

However, in none of them does she in any way suggest the district court abused its 

discretion in its attorney fee award. Even if it were possible to construe portions of 

Ms. Johnson’s opening brief as challenging the attorney fees order, she waived 

appellate consideration of any such arguments by not objecting below. See Strauss v. 

Angie’s List, Inc., 951 F.3d 1263, 1266 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2020) (“Generally, this court 

does not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.”). 

Ms. Johnson filed her notice of appeal on July 1, 2019. In it, she designated 

only the attorney fees order, and not the underlying contempt order, as the order 

being appealed. “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) requires a notice of 

appeal to designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed, and those 

designations circumscribe the scope of our appellate review.” HCG Platinum, LLC v. 

Preferred Prod. Placement Corp., 873 F.3d 1191, 1199 n.8 (10th Cir. 2017) (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted). And because the district court issued the 

underlying contempt order on April 14, 2021, the notice of appeal Ms. Johnson filed 

on July 1, 2021 is untimely to permit review of that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B)(i) (setting a 60-day deadline to file a notice of appeal when the United 

States is a party). 

Appellate Case: 21-4080 Document: 010110651694 Date Filed: 03/02/2022 Page: 4
5 

CONCLUSION 

Lacking any basis to disturb the district court’s attorney fee award, we affirm 

the judgment of the district court. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 21-4080 Document: 010110651694 Date Filed: 03/02/2022 Page: 5