Opinion ID: 146818
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional issues raised pro se.

Text: As for the issues raised by Martin pro se, we will accord him the liberal construction deserving a pro se submission, see Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1311 (10th Cir. 2010), but we will not make his arguments for him, see Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (noting that pro se litigant is obligated to comply with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure), or act as his advocate, Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 2009). Martin first argues that he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, “ineffective assistance of counsel claims are more appropriate for collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 than direct appeal, because the factual record for such claims is more developed when the district court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the issue.” United States v. Bergman, 599 F.3d 1142, 1149 (10th Cir. 2010). We will not address Martin’s ineffective assistance of -6- counsel claim in his direct appeal because we do not have the benefit of that factual development. Martin states that counsel filed pretrial motions “but didn’t Appeal any to the District Court or the Appeal[]s Court.” Ltr. of Feb. 28, 2010, at 1. Rulings on pretrial motions are only rarely immediately appealable, and Martin does not identify which pretrial rulings should have or could have been immediately appealed. Martin further asserts that the chain of custody was broken, but gives no details as to that matter; nor does he provide enough details to enable us to determine whether there is any substance to his claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated. His contention that Cobbs’ testimony was improper under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because it may have “provoked an emotional response in the jury,” Ltr. of Feb. 17, 2010, at 1, is conclusory speculation. Martin’s most substantial claim is “that there is a possibility . . . that the loss and restitution determination is in error.” Ltr. of Feb. 14, 2010 at 1. “We review factual findings regarding calculation of loss under a clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. James, 592 F.3d 1109, 1114 (10th Cir. 2010). To the extent Martin also challenges the methodology the district court used to calculate loss, that is a legal question we review de novo. Id. We have reviewed the sentencing hearing testimony of Christopher Ford, who testified to the losses calculated by Tyson. See R. Vol. 2 at 620-58. We have also considered the reasoning of the district court in determining how much of those losses should be -7- attributed to Martin. See id. at 662-66; 679-97; 715-723. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, “‘“[a]ctual loss” means the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense.’” James, 592 F.3d at 1114 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(A)(i)). “The [sentencing] court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss.” Id. (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). After detailed technical testimony regarding Tyson’s loss and a lengthy colloquy with all counsel regarding the proper methodology to use in calculating the loss, the district court concluded that Martin was responsible for losses totaling $404,355. R. Vol. 2. at 720. We conclude the loss amount determined by the court falls within the evidence presented and is a reasonable estimate of the loss.