reversal is 'necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.' ” United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Bustillo, 789 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1986)). Third, it is a " ‘manifest injustice’ to reverse the conviction of one co-defendant but to uphold the conviction of another co-defendant when the same error affected both defendants.” Id. (citing United States v. Olano, 934 F.2d 1425, 1439 (9th Cir.1991), rev’d on other grounds, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). Finally, there was no Ninth Circuit decision clearly on point about this issue until Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2000), which came down after the briefs were filed in this case. See Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO, Inc., 24 F.3d 1565, 1583 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). After Bains came down, the court ordered the
holding that a party may pursue an issue not raised in its initial brief where a substantial change in law occurs after the brief was filed holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised