David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One
10th Cir. CA · Feb 6, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's motion for relief from judgment. The court explicitly found that the appellant relied on fabricated case law and misattributed quotes, noting that neither pro se status nor the use of generative AI excuses a failure to provide valid, supportive legal authority.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Sifuentes cited a 2008 D.C. case titled "In re Search of a Nextel Cellular Telephone" that does not exist; the court found the authority fabricated and not supportive of his proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Sifuentes attributes language to Sinclair v. Wainwright that the court found nowhere in that opinion; the panel determined the quoted language does not appear in the cited case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | A reporter citation supplied by Sifuentes retrieves a different case name and does not contain the legal proposition he attributes to it; the court noted the citation did not support his argument.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
In this appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a pro se litigant's motion for relief from judgment. The court identified that the appellant, David Angel Sifuentes, III, relied on fabricated legal authorities, including a non-existent 2008 D.C. case and misattributed quotes from Sinclair v. Wainwright. The panel emphasized that neither pro se status nor the use of generative AI excuses violations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A), which requires that cited authorities must exist and support the propositions for which they are offered. The court rejected Sifuentes' arguments as meritless and affirmed the district court's warning regarding potential future filing restrictions due to his history of filing frivolous motions.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court explicitly references the appellant's use of generative artificial intelligence.
Appeal from the district court's denial of a fourth motion for relief from judgment in a civil contract dispute.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Sifuentes cited a 2008 D.C. case titled "In re Search of a Nextel Cellular Telephone" that does not exist; the court found the authority fabricated and not supportive of his proposition.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Sifuentes attributes language to Sinclair v. Wainwright that the court found nowhere in that opinion; the panel determined the quoted language does not appear in the cited case.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | A reporter citation supplied by Sifuentes retrieves a different case name and does not contain the legal proposition he attributes to it; the court noted the citation did not support his argument.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One?
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's motion for relief from judgment. The court explicitly found that the appellant relied on fabricated case law and misattributed quotes, noting that neither pro se status nor the use of generative AI excuses a failure to provide valid, supportive legal authority.
- Why does David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One?
- 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 David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One 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.