Of the seven names included in Kreso’s letter, only Ann Jodway is also mentioned in Kreso’s appellate briefing. Although Kreso argues he was denied the right to cross-examine Ms. Jodway to expose her biases, he does not identify any statements she made to the AIB or the DAB and it appears he, instead, considered her a character witness. See SIL-FLO, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc., 917 F.2d 1507, 1513-14 (10th Cir.1990) (setting out the well-established rule that this court does not sift through the record to find evidence supporting a party’s position). This court does not engage in speculation. Kreso’s due process argument as to Ms. Jodway fails because he has wholly failed to present any meaningful argument that this court can address. See Meder v. Okla. City, 869 F.2d 553, 555 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Am. Mfrs. Mut.
holding that because plaintiff failed to allege invidious discrimination based upon his membership in a protected class his equal protection claim failed at its inception holding that cue required a showing that the alleged error in the challenged decision would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time it was made holding due process claim failed because plaintiff failed to explain how confrontation and crossexamination would have changed the outcome of his hearing holding that the expert failed to explain how the defendants device operated in an equivalent manner to one of the patent claims holding a party failed to preserve error on its constitutional due process argument concerning notice when they did not cite any state or federal constitutional provision to the trial court or otherwise explain how lack of notice violated their constitutional rights