to be a candidate eligible for parole at that time. The inmate cannot be a candidate eligible for parole unless he has successfully progressed in SOTMP and has Defendants’ recommendation in favor of parole.”). Mr. Firth cites numerous state statutory sections in his opening appeal brief that he maintains create the liberty interest he alleges. Many of these sections were repealed in 2002, see Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 16-13-801 to 16-13-812, and he does not cite corresponding statutes that are currently in effect, if any. Other statutes he points to were not considered by the district court, and he fails to identify the specific pages in the record where he brought these provisions to that court’s attention. See Lopez v. Behles (In re Am. Ready Mix, Inc.), 14 F.3d 1497, 1502 (10th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Notably, he does not cite to the points in
holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court holding a new constitutional challenge not raised in district court was not properly before court of appeals