v. Pierce, 893 F.2d 669, 676 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980, 999 (5th Cir.1987). As Defendant points out, the jury was not given this Pinkerton instruction. Thus, his aiding and abetting conviction cannot rest on a conspiracy theory. 4 . See United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 64 n. 4, 71 S.Ct. 595, 599, 95 L.Ed. 747 (1951); Williams, 985 F.2d at 753. 5 . Defendant did not challenge his prison sentence in his Apprendi argument either in his brief or at oral argument. Although an argument not raised on appeal is ordinarily deemed abandoned or waived, the Court may consider it on its own accord when manifest injustice would otherwise occur. United States v. Quiroz, 22 F.3d 489, 490-91 (2nd Cir.1994); cf. United States v. Winn, 948 F.2d 145, 157 (5th Cir.1991)(<HOLDING>). It would be manifestly unjust under the
holding that courts of appeals will generally not consider arguments raised on appeal for first time in reply brief holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief holding that in the absence of manifest injustice the court will not consider arguments raised for the first time in appellants reply brief holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived