or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000))). In other words, in order to obtain a COA, the petitioner must show that the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claims was either “debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. In assessing whether to grant a COA, the “threshold inquiry does not require full consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the claims.” United States v. Silva, 430 F.3d 1096, 1100 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although an applicant “is not r 7, No. 10-6058, 2010 WL 3965899, at *1 (10th Cir. Oct.12, 2010) (<HOLDING>); Mathews v. McKune, 133 Fed.Appx. 512, 514
holding that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived holding that the appellant had waived claims raised on appeal because his opening brief contained no substantive arguments pertaining to those claims and the court would not permit him to incorporate the arguments set forth in his filings with the district court holding that appellant waived claims on appeal by failing to advance arguments in support of them in the body of his brief holding arguments not raised on appeal waived