Opinion ID: 749690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conduit Theory

Text: 14 Next, Canton asserts that under the mere conduit theory, it was not the actual transferee of the funds and thus is not liable. 6 Canton's appeal on this point is also procedurally defective. Although Canton elliptically alluded to the conduit theory in its brief in the district court in opposition to Xeta's motion for summary judgment, 7 it did not directly identify or discuss it, and correspondingly, the district court did not address it. In this circuit, we will not consider on appeal an issue that was not properly raised before the district court. See Bancamerica Commercial Corp. v. Mosher Steel of Kan., Inc., 100 F.3d 792, 798-99 (10th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 103 F.3d 80 (10th Cir.1996); Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir.1992). 15 In any event, as with Canton's previous contention, the argument is meritless. While Canton insists that the record shows that the large majority of the $116,500 transferred to it was immediately transferred to other third parties, Appellant's Br. at 7-8, it identifies nothing in the record to support this assertion. 8