willingness to take the stand "compelled [him] to be a witness against himself" in violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause. We therefore do not consider the argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (providing that ”[t]he appellant's brief must contain ... appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”); United States v. Smith, 441 F.3d 254, 274 (4th Cir.2006) (applying Rule 28 in criminal case). Instead, Williams argues that the district court's ruling conditioning his ability to perform the demonstration on his willingness to be subjected to cross-examination violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) (<HOLDING>). This argument is entirely without merit.
holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment holding excessive force in public school context is a violation of substantive due process guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment holding that a state defendant has a sixth amendment right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendments due process clause to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor