the trial court found in imposing the death penalty. (And, in any event, as the state trial court found: (1) San Martin had failed to establish that, when considering Abreu's affidavit and subsequent testimony, the State had knowingly forced Abreu to present perjurious testimony to the jury; and (2) regardless of when the plan was discussed, the time was more than sufficient to support the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravating circumstance.) On appeal, San Martin has not made these arguments, and therefore has waived them. Isaacs v. Head, 300 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir.2002) (“Of the issues for which Isaacs received permission to appeal, he apparently chose to abandon all but eight for purposes of this appeal.”); Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n. 1 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The fact that he discusses the co-defendant's
holding that where a party does not adequately brief an argument we need not address it on appeal holding that a habeas petitioner abandons the claims he does not address on appeal holding that an appellant abandons an issue for purposes of appeal where he fails to argue it in his briefs holding violation of rule 23a does not entitle petitioner to habeas relief holding that a party abandons claims that he does not argue in his brief