Opinion ID: 4530326
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Portillo Martinez’s Request for Sanctions

Text: In his reply brief, Mr. Portillo Martinez asks us to assess monetary sanctions against the government for what he characterizes as the government’s “attempt to confuse this Court and . . . continu[e] the errors of law and fact committed by the IJ and the [BIA].” Reply Br. at 18. “We must deny this request because [Mr. Portillo Martinez] failed to file a separate motion or notice requesting sanctions.” Abeyta v. City of Albuquerque, 664 F.3d 792, 797 (10th Cir. 2011). “A separately filed motion requesting sanctions 6 constitutes notice. A statement inserted in a party’s brief that the party moves for sanctions is not sufficient notice.” Fed. R. App. P. 38 advisory committee’s note to 1994 amendment; see Kelley v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 793 F. App’x 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (applying rule to deny request for sanctions, inserted in appellant’s reply brief, for appellee’s assertion of “multiple baseless allegations” on appeal).