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 or der 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 appella te record, this pa nel 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 This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 12 BACKGROUND This is one of many appeals arising from a civil proceeding in which the United States alleged, and the district c ourt ultimately found, that three companies— RaPower3, LLC; Internationa l Automated Systems, Inc.; and LTB1, LLC—and two individuals—Neldon Johnson a nd R. Gregory Shephard—operated a fraudulent solar energy tax scheme. The distri ct court ordered the appointme nt of a receiver for the three entities, disgorgement of all gro ss receipts, and cessation of all business operations. We affirmed the court’s findi ngs of fraud, disgor gement order, and injunction in United States v. RaPower-3, LLC , 960 F.3d 1240, 1243–44 (10th Cir. 2020). In its “Corrected Re ceivership Order,” 1 the court prohibited all persons receiving notice of it from ta king any action that would in terfere with the Receiver’s duties. The order specifically prohibited creating or enforcing liens on receivership property. Despite being subject to the or der, Ms. Johnson, the wife of Defendant Neldon Johnson, filed a “Notice of Lien” on receivership property in Millard County, Utah, and brought suit in st ate 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 receiversh ip property in Utah and Texas. The court ordered Ms. Johns on to release the liens a nd dismiss the lawsuit to enforce the lien. When she did not do so, the Receiver f iled a “Notice of

1 The court issued the firs t receivership order on Octo ber 31, 2018. It issued the Corrected Receivership Order one day late r to revise some fo rmatting errors. Appellate Case: 21-4080 Document: 010110651694 Date Filed: 03/02/2022 Page: 23 Non-Compliance” with the district court. Ms. Johnson responded with a declaration asserting she lacked the aut hority to release the liens. The Receiver contested this assertion, and the district court entere d 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 re lease the liens. She submitted a second declaration, and the Receiver again contested her assertion th at 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 in terference 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 Apr il 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 th e Receiver incurred. The R eceiver 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 or dered Ms. Johnson to pay the Receiver for $53,518.34. Ms. Johnson a ppeals this order.
DISCUSSION Because Ms. Johnson is pro se, we construe her argum ents liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serv ing as [her] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Ci r. 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: 34 district court’s applicati on 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 distri ct court abused its discretion in its attorney fee award. Even if it were po ssible 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 Ci r. 2020) (“Generally, this court does not consider arguments raised fo r 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 th e underlying contempt or der, as the order being appealed. “Federal Ru le of Appellate Procedure 3( c)(1)(B) requires a notice of appeal to designate the judgment, order, or part thereof bei ng appealed, and those designations circumscri be the scope of our appellate review.” HCG Platinum, LLC v. Preferred Prod. Placement Corp. , 873 F.3d 1191, 1199 n.8 (1 0th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). An d 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 app eal when the United States is a party). Appellate Case: 21-4080 Document: 010110651694 Date Filed: 03/02/2022 Page: 45 CONCLUSION Lacking any basis to disturb the district court’s attorn ey 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