Page:Martinez v Gonzales,pdf.pdf/5

 Apart from attacking the validity of the warrant, Ms. Martinez and Mr. Romero advance no argument addressing the district court’s immunity rulings. Instead, pages 3 through 26 of their opening brief lament defendants’ conduct—alleged due process violations in the underlying criminal proceedings and violations of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. None of this discussion tells us why the district court erred in granting summary judgment on immunity grounds. ''See Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver'', 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (“The first task of an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong. Recitation of a tale of apparent injustice may assist in that task, but it cannot substitute for legal argument.").

The remainder of their brief fares no better. After articulating our standard of review and summarizing their arguments, Ms. Martinez and Mr. Romero elaborate, on pages 28 through 37 of their opening brief, on the alleged due process violations in the underlying criminal proceedings. But these arguments suggest no error with the district court’s immunity rulings. On pages 38 through 42, Ms. Martinez and Mr. Romero repeat their arguments that the warrant was invalid, all of which we have

5