HomeCasesDavid Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One

10th Cir. CA · Feb 6, 2026

/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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.

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

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

Court10th Cir. CA

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateFeb 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

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?: 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.
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.

Ryan-Michael Jarvis v. County of Teton Wyoming10th Cir. CA · Apr 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Chapter Kris Jackson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.10th Cir. CA · Jun 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc.10th Cir. CA · Mar 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Flora Chumpitaz-Morales v. Pamela J. Bondi10th Cir. CA · Feb 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Rashonna Moore v. City of Del City10th Cir. CA · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations P-Three Development, LLC v. Therm Flo, Inc.CA Illinois · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

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?

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?

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.