or otherwise resolved and are not at issue in this appeal. 2 . We have omitted internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations here and throughout this opinion, unless otherwise noted. 3 . In light of this holding, we need not address the parties’ arguments concerning the district court’s additional grounds for granting DirecTV’s motion, that the phone calls were not "in or affecting commerce.” 4 . In its reply brief, Exclaim argues DirecTV did not satisfy this burden because it demonstrated total profits, while the statute should be inteipreted to require a plaintiff to show profits relating to the infringing activity. Because that argument is raised for the first time in the reply brief, we do not consider it. See Cavallo v. Star Enter., 100 F.3d 1150, 1152 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996)
holding that an issue first argued in a reply brief is not properly before a court of appeals holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief