Ms. Richardson’s testimony, the jury could reasonably infer that Mr. Brinson was trying to prevent Ms. Richardson from testifying before the grand jury. Thus, the jury could reasonably have found Mr. Brinson guilty of obstructing justice. X. Conclusion The district court did not commit error in the rulings on evidentiary issues, in denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, or in application of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Thus, we affirm. 1 . Mr. Brinson also suggests that Detective Stigerts' testimony duplicated lay testimony. See Mr. Brinson’s Opening Br. at 41. But Mr. Brinson does not explain how the testimony was duplicative. Because Mr. Brinson has not developed this argument, we deem it waived. See United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144
holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned recognizing that arguments not briefed on appeal are waived holding that arguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived holding that an inadequately briefed assertion is waived on appeal holding that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived