Opinion ID: 2804365
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conclusory argument

Text: The dissent suggests that Encarnación waived his appellate argument for another reason. Specifically, the dissent claims that Encarnación waived the argument that Rosemond requires the government to prove an aider an abettor's knowledge of age as an element of the crime because he gave us nothing more than conclusory statements on appeal. We have repeatedly stated that we deem waived claims not made or claims adverted to in a cursory fashion, unaccompanied by -7- developed argument. Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2011). We require parties to 'spell out their issues clearly, highlighting the relevant facts and analyzing on-point authority.' United States v. Gray, 780 F.3d 458, 464 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodriguez, 659 F.3d at 175). Here, Encarnación's supplemental brief argued that a person becomes an aider and abettor if and only if the person 'actively participates in a criminal venture with full knowledge of the circumstances constituting the charged offense,' and the age of the victim is one of the circumstances that constitutes the charged offense. Appellant's Supp. Br. at 10-11 (quoting Rosemond, 134 S. Ct. at 1248-49). Encarnación also identified four other passages in Rosemond to support his on-point argument. Therefore, we find the argument has been sufficiently developed and is not waived. See Gray, 780 F.3d at 464 (finding that argument not waived where defendant cited only one case but offered a short but on-point argument).