statement when asked whether he prayed to God for the shooting. Petitioner only asserted that his answer during the interrogation was involuntary because it was obtained after three hours of questioning during which time Petitioner remained largely silent. The sole issue presented was whether Petitioner invoked his right to remain silent based on the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. An evidentiary hearing was not necessary to resolve that issue. Thompkins v. Berghuis, 05-70188, 2011 WL 835927 at *2 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 8, 2011). Thus, even if the procedural argument is not a new “claim,” the contention that it relates to was not raised before the district court on the original habeas petition and therefore was waived. Cf. Lancaster v. Metrish, 683 F.3d 740, 753 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). We affirm the district court’s judgment and,
holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief holding that a party waives an objection by failing to request a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence before the district court holding that a party in a habeas case waives an argument by failing to raise it before the district court holding that a defendant waived an argument under section 2  610b by failing to raise it in the trial court holding that appellant waived argument by failing to raise argument before workers compensation board and failing to list or brief issue in administrative appeal to superior court