Opinion ID: 217641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Application of Sentencing Guidelines and Restitution

Text: Mr. Fishman makes a very abbreviated argument that the district court erred in its application of the sentencing guidelines as well as the imposition of the amount of restitution ordered. He appears to argue that the amount of loss attributed to him resulted in an unreasonable sentence and an unfair amount of restitution. But he provides no explanation of why, and/or how much loss he thinks is properly attributable to him. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim, particularly when, as here, a host of other issues are presented for review. Craven v. University of Colorado Hosp. Auth., 260 F.3d 1218, 1226 (10th Cir.2001) (further quotation omitted). Because he fails to develop this argument or provide any citations to authorities or the record, we do not address it.