offer, which it did the following day. Both parties and their respective attorneys signed the agreement, further demonstrating their intent. to. be bound by the terms of the document. And the elated response. of Beverly’s counsel to Abbott’s acceptance further underscores the parties’ understanding that the handwritten agreement would settle Beverly’s claims. Beverly contends that the district court erred in relying on cases such as Elustra v. Mineo that involve oral agreements because the agreement at issue here was handwritten, not oral. , But Beverly fails to cite a single case to support this contention, much less explain wby the oral-versus-written distinction is relevant here. This failure amounts to forfeiture. See United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Forfeiture aside, our cases counsel that the
holding that appellate courts will not review undeveloped and unsupported arguments holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence holding arguments first raised in reply brief are forfeited holding that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority are forfeited on appeal