Opinion ID: 2746015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restitution Inadequately Raised

Text: To the extent Ms. Edwards argues the loss-calculation claim implicates the “imposition of restitution,” Aplt. Br. at 21, the district court deemed that aspect of the claim waived. Order, ECF No. 2560, ROA, Vol. 2 at 123-24 n.4 (observing the supplemental motion clarified Ms. Edwards’s loss-calculation claim, but focused only on how the loss calculation affected the prison sentence, leading the court to conclude that “[i]n the absence of a clear and conspicuous argument challenging the restitution amount on this ground, the Court deems Ms. Edwards to have waived submission of this issue”). Ms. Edwards’s pro se motion was a series of memoranda totaling 50 pages and lacked organization, clear arguments, grammatically correct sentences, and record -8- citations to support the asserted facts. See Mot., ECF No. 2488, ROA, Vol. 1 at 535-84. The motion mentioned the 1U transaction only once within the context of restitution and the loss-calculation claim, and failed to differentiate whether she challenged her trial counsel’s effectiveness, the district court’s calculation, or both. See id. at 549. Courts can construe a pro se litigant’s arguments “liberally,” United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009), but here the court asked counsel to clarify Ms. Edwards’s arguments. In the supplemental motion, counsel explained the scope of the vague losscalculation claim was limited to challenging the term of imprisonment, which, as we have concluded, is a moot issue. We agree with the district court that Ms. Edwards did not adequately raise a claim about the amount of restitution.