David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One
10th Cir. CA · Feb 6, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- 10th Cir. CA
- Record ID
- david-angel-sifuentes-iii-v-capital-one-2026-02-06
- Observed outcome
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the appellant's motion for relief from judgment.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Misrepresented_authority
- False_quotes
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the district court's denial of a fourth motion for relief from judgment in a civil contract dispute.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court explicitly references the appellant's use of generative artificial intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.