Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Cotto v. United States
D. Colorado · Nov 17, 2025
CO / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F.4th 1015' for summary-judgment guidance; the Court found no such decision exists, noted the 29 F.4th pin cite aligns with Barrera Arreguin v. Garland, 29 F.4th 1010, and that an unrelated Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F. App'x 548 (10th Cir. 2002) exists. Outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it..
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F.4th 1015' for summary-judgment guidance; the Court found no such decision exists, noted the 29 F.4th pin cite aligns with Barrera Arreguin v. Garland, 29 F.4th 1010, and that an unrelated Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F. App'x 548 (10th Cir. 2002) exists.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it..
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F.4th 1015' for summary-judgment guidance; the Court found no such decision exists, noted the 29 F.4th pin cite aligns with Barrera Arreguin v. Garland, 29 F.4th 1010, and that an unrelated Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F. App'x 548 (10th Cir. 2002) exists. Outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it..
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it..
Record details
ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Colorado
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateNov 17, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMotion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F.4th 1015' for summary-judgment guidance; the Court found no such decision exists, noted the 29 F.4th pin cite aligns with Barrera Arreguin v. Garland, 29 F.4th 1010, and that an unrelated Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F. App'x 548 (10th Cir. 2002) exists.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Cotto v. United States?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F.4th 1015' for summary-judgment guidance; the Court found no such decision exists, noted the 29 F.4th pin cite aligns with Barrera Arreguin v. Garland, 29 F.4th 1010, and that an unrelated Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F. App'x 548 (10th Cir. 2002) exists. Outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it..
- Why does Cotto v. United States matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it..
- What does the public record establish about Cotto v. United States?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Cotto v. United States summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.