Opinion ID: 4564364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The EBRR Claim

Text: Mr. Crosby’s appeal, even liberally construed, does not challenge the district court’s merits ruling on his EBRR Claim. Unlike the Transfer Claim, the district court did not dismiss Mr. Crosby’s EBRR Claim for lack of statutory jurisdiction. Thus, Mr. Crosby’s challenge to the district court’s ruling on his Transfer Claim cannot apply to his EBRR Claim. Mr. Crosby also does not raise any independent objection to the district court’s ruling on his EBRR Claim. Although Mr. Crosby asserts that he is eligible to participate in EBRR programming, his eligibility is not at issue. In fact, the district court acknowledged Mr. Crosby’s eligibility. ROA at 130. Accordingly, in the absence of Mr. Crosby’s identifying any error by the district 4 court as regards the EBRR Claim, we need not review the district court’s merits ruling on that claim. See Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1205 (10th Cir. 2010) (“A court of appeals is not required to manufacture an appellant’s argument on appeal when it has failed in its burden to draw our attention to the error below.”).