court ... ”). Nevertheless, at the beginning of the delinquency hearing which was held the same day the court denied the motion to dismiss, the court permitted the defendant to orally assert the additional grounds in open court and on the record. Thus, the additional grounds asserted were preserved for our review. However, in light of the trial court’s correct ruling on the jurisdictional issue and the defendant’s failure to include that issue in his brief, the jurisdictional issue has been abandoned, see also Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(6)("[l]he argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.”); Gann v. Fruehauf Corp., 52 F.3d 1320, 1328 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), and does not warrant our review sua sponte. 4
holding that appellant waived claims on appeal by failing to advance arguments in support of them in the body of his brief holding that appellant abandoned argument by failing to argue it in body of brief holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal holding that the appellant had waived claims raised on appeal because his opening brief contained no substantive arguments pertaining to those claims and the court would not permit him to incorporate the arguments set forth in his filings with the district court