Opinion ID: 2669163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Incorporation of Arguments by Codefendants

Text: Mr. Daniel Maumau and Mr. Kamahele attempted to broadly adopt their codefendants’ arguments under Fed. R. App. P. 28(i). But they were too general in what they wanted to adopt. For example, Mr. Daniel Maumau stated: “To the extent that they are applicable to his case [he] joins and incorporates by reference the arguments raised” in the appeals by Mr. Tuai, Mr. Kepa Maumau, Mr. Toki, and Mr. Kamahele. Daniel Maumau’s Opening Br. at 54. And Mr. Kamahele wrote that he was joining his codefendants’ arguments involving the jury instructions, admissibility of expert testimony, and “application of the Enterprise to the defendants.” Kamahele’s Opening Br. at 26. From these descriptions, the Court would have to: (1) guess which arguments applied to Mr. Daniel Maumau, and (2) review all of the Defendants’ briefs to discern which parts were being adopted by Mr. Kamahele. We decline “to sift through the briefing . . . and imagine which arguments might apply to” Mr. Daniel Maumau and Mr. Kamahele. United States v. Renteria, 720 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2013). As a result, we will not allow Mr. Daniel Maumau and Mr. Kamahele to adopt (without specificity) their codefendants’ arguments. 11