22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T46a,facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we will not “do [the] appellant’s work for it, either by manufacturing its legal arguments, or by combing the record on its behalf for factual support.” George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 837 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Qwest Corp., 678 F.3d 970, 979 (9th Cir. 2012)). Here, Appellants recognize that the parties have different versions of the facts, and they spend the argument portion of their brief disputing Le’s version. For example, Appellants contend that Tommy presented an immediate threat to deputies and bystanders because Molina had reason to believe that Tommy was armed. Although it is undisputed that Molina had received reports that Tommy was armed with a knife or a pointed object, it is highly disputed whether Tommy was actually armed and whether Molina should have known that Tommy was 3 unarmed when Molina encountered and shot Tommy. Because Appellants do not accept Le’s version of the facts and fail to present a question of law, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 424:T4bc,

facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we will not “do [the] appellant’s

work for it, either by manufacturing its legal arguments, or by combing the record

on its behalf for factual support.” George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 837 (9th Cir.

2013) (quoting W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Qwest Corp., 678 F.3d 970, 979 (9th Cir.

2012)). Here, Appellants recognize that the parties have different versions of the

facts, and they spend the argument portion of their brief disputing Le’s version.

For example, Appellants contend that Tommy presented an immediate threat to

deputies and bystanders because Molina had reason to believe that Tommy was

armed. Although it is undisputed that Molina had received reports that Tommy

was armed with a knife or a pointed object, it is highly disputed whether Tommy

was actually armed and whether Molina should have known that Tommy was

3 unarmed when Molina encountered and shot Tommy. Because Appellants do not

accept Le’s version of the facts and fail to present a question of law, we lack

jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.