of the parties. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the conviction of Appellant Jack Davis be affirmed. Appellant challenges his conviction on several grounds, none of which has merit. First, appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found in his car because FBI agents lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the car. In his opening brief, however, he argues only that his U-turn was legal; he does not challenge the district court’s finding that he failed to stop at the stop sign — a traffic violation that justified the stop. United States v. Mitchell, 951 F.2d 1291, 1295 (D.C.Cir.1991). Because he failed to challenge this ruling until his reply brief, appellant has waived this argument. PDK Labs. Inc. v. DEA, 438 F.3d 1184, 1196 (D.C.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Even were the issue properly raised, given
holding an argument made in plaintiffs reply brief but not in their opening brief waived holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised holding that an argument raised in a footnote in an opening brief was waived as not properly raised holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived