Opinion ID: 6337650
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadequate Briefing

Text: Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant’s opening brief to include: “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). And we have explained that “[i]ssues will be deemed waived if they are not adequately briefed.” Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841 (internal quotation marks omitted). Ms. Lundahl has failed to adequately brief her remaining three issues.2 For issue VII, she asserts that the government “altered and doctored the grand jury record,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 26, and engaged in other misconduct. In thirteen pages of argument, Ms. Lundahl includes only one record citation, see id. at 38 (citing Doc. 201). Document 201 is a motion to dismiss that she filed but she gives no pinpoint page citations to evidence in that document; her citation simply states “[a]lso see Doc. 201.” Id. This lone citation, without more, is wholly inadequate to support her assertion of government misconduct.3 2 We note that Ms. Lundahl cites documents 342 and 343 in her discussion of these three issues, but those documents are not part of the record on appeal. She filed those documents in district court after she filed her notice of appeal and the district court struck them. 3 We also note that, during trial, the district court concluded that Ms. Lundahl’s accusations concerning government misconduct and fabrication of 6 Appellate Case: 21-8061 Document: 010110679614 Date Filed: 05/04/2022 Page: 7 For issue X, Ms. Lundahl argues that criminal estoppel bars the prosecution and jury verdict because she “was denied the right at trial, to either testify about numerous laws she relied upon . . . , or to submit any of these laws to the jury.” Id. at 46. And for issue XI, she contends that “Wyoming Medicaid suffered no ‘purchasing injury’ because [she] performed 4 to 6 times more in daily hourly services than reimbursed by Medicaid, thus no corpus delicti injury.” Id. at 47. But she fails to cite to any part of the record to support these arguments. Absent citations to the record in a party’s brief, the court “will not sift through the record to find support for” an argument. Phillips v. James, 422 F.3d 1075, 1081 (10th Cir. 2005). Even when affording pro se pleadings a liberal construction, we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett, 425 F.3d at 840. We conclude that Ms. Lundahl’s pleading deficiencies disentitle her to appellate review of her remaining three issues (issues VII, X, and XI).