to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate ‘something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith’ on his part.” Id. (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029). In this instance, Mr. Hernandez has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, therefore, we deny his request for a COA and dismiss his appeal. In his COA application, Mr. Hernandez does not specifically discuss the district court’s resolution of any of his habeas claims, much less explain how reasonable jurists could debate the correctness of that resolution. According ly, we deem Mr. Hernandez’s challenge to the district court’s resolution of his claims to be waived. See United States v. Springfield, 337 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Thomas v. Frech, 400 Fed.Appx. 315,
holding that defendant waived his blakely claim as issue on appeal by failing to raise it in his initial brief holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief holding that prisoner waived first amendment claim because he failed to brief arguments on appeal holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal recognizing that the appellants claim on appeal had been abandoned because although his motion for a coa  briefly asserted the claim he did not brief the issue