Opinion ID: 6328867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Clarkson’s Motion to Supplement the Record

Text: Clarkson attached 31 exhibits to his opening brief. He then filed a motion seeking to supplement the record to include 30 of these exhibits. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e), a party may modify the record on appeal “only to the extent it is necessary to ‘truly disclose what occurred in the district court.’” United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir. 2000) (brackets omitted) (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(1)). “This court will not consider material outside the record before the district court.” Id. Indeed, while “Rule 10(e) 6 Appellate Case: 21-2059 Document: 010110665290 Date Filed: 03/31/2022 Page: 7 allows a party to supplement the record on appeal,” it “does not grant a license to build a new record.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The exhibits Clarkson seeks to add to the record fall into three general categories: (1) documents not presented to the district court in any form; (2) documents presented to the district court in a different form, such as with different portions highlighted; and (3) copies of publicly available documents, such as NMSU regulations. Our precedent forecloses supplementing the record with documents from the first two categories because we “will not consider material outside the record before the district court.” Id. And we need not supplement the record to include the documents in the third category because the documents falling in this category cited to or by the district court are already in the record. See R. at 208–11, 219–24. We therefore deny Clarkson’s motion to supplement the record.