context: The parties did not advance this ground before the district court -- i.e., focusing on Mr. Pursley's opportunity vel non to cross -- examine Mr. Cluff-nor did the district court address it. However, we clearly have the discretion under certain specified circumstances to affirm a district court on a previously unexplored ground.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 770 F.2d 508, 511
citation_a.parenthetical: "[W]hen the judgment of a district court is correct, it may be affirmed for reasons not given by the court and not advanced to it."
citation_a.sentence: See Ledford, 443 F.3d at 707 (“We may affirm the rulings of the lower court on any ground that finds support in the record, even where the lower court reached its conclusions from a different or even erroneous course of reasoning.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Sandia, 188 F.3d 1215, 1217-18 (10th Cir.1999) (“[W]e are free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by the district court.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Laird v. Shell Oil Co., 770 F.2d 508, 511 (5th Cir.1985) (“[W]hen the judgment of a district court is correct, it may be affirmed for reasons not given by the court and not advanced to it.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 188 F.3d 1215, 1217-18
citation_b.parenthetical: "[W]e are free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by the district court." (alteration in original
citation_b.sentence: See Ledford, 443 F.3d at 707 (“We may affirm the rulings of the lower court on any ground that finds support in the record, even where the lower court reached its conclusions from a different or even erroneous course of reasoning.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Sandia, 188 F.3d 1215, 1217-18 (10th Cir.1999) (“[W]e are free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by the district court.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Laird v. Shell Oil Co., 770 F.2d 508, 511 (5th Cir.1985) (“[W]hen the judgment of a district court is correct, it may be affirmed for reasons not given by the court and not advanced to it.”).