were not argued in the appellant’s initial brief to this Court. See, e.g., Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 34 (Fed. Cir.1999) (Carbino II) (“improper or late presentation of an issue or argument [i.e., raised in the reply brief for the first time] ... ordinarily should not be considered”) aff'g Carbino v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 507, 511 (1997) (Carbino I) (declining to review argument first raised in appellant’s reply brief); Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776, 781 (Fed.Cir.1998) (stressing importance of raising arguments to BVA pursuant to “doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies”); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 488, 498 (1997) (Court declines to review matter first raised by amicus curiae subsequent to appellant’s motion for panel review); Horowitz v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 217, 225 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Tubianosa v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 181, 184
holding that the prisoner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted his administrative remedies in his complaint holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court holding that because veteran had never before submitted due process issue to bva he had not exhausted his administrative remedies and court declined to address merits of that claim holding that a texas prisoner who had not exhausted his clearly available administrative remedies was properly denied habeas relief in the district court