Ms. Goren bases her statement of facts on her second amended complaint. That complaint, however, is not before this court. On September 3, 1997, the district court entered a judgment dismissing Ms. Goren’s complaint. Ms. Goren subsequently filed a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend judgment to permit filing of a second amended complaint. Ms. Goren attached her proposed second amended complaint to that motion. On October 23, 1998, the court entered an order denying Ms. Goren’s motion. In her opening brief, Ms. Goren devoted nearly her en tire argument to the district court’s decision dismissing her amended complaint. Indeed, there is no “Issue Presented" or meaningful argument regarding the district court’s denial of Ms. Goren’s 93) (<HOLDING>). 5 . At oral argument, Ms. Goren’s counsel
holding that a prisoner did not engage in protected conduct when he threatened to file a frivolous grievance holding that attorney who allegedly prepared false private placement memoranda regarding limited partnership did not conduct affairs of enterprise because he did not direct  the legal entities he represented to engage in particular transactions holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial holding that the defendant had abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in bags found in the truck he was driving where he stated that he did not own the bags did not know who did and did not know what was in them holding that harold fine did not have direct and independent knowledge because he did not personally conduct the audits that led to the public disclosures