exercised supplemental jurisdiction over their claims. Plaintiffs' only substantive statement regarding the district court's exercise of jurisdiction is that the district court erroneously denied plaintiffs’ motion to sever these claims and remand them back to state court, saying that they were part of the "same case or controversy” as the forfeiture itself, and that subject matter jurisdiction was present under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) even though the bank employees' alleged actions had occurred months previously and had minimal factual nexus with the consent judgment of forfeiture. See Plaintiffs' Br. at 59. It is only in their reply brief that Plaintiffs set forth a developed argument and citations to support their claim. United States v. Crozier, 259 F.3d 503, 517 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, as discussed in the main text,
holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived holding that defendant could not address merits of claim of error for first time in reply brief even though defendant cited to statute governing issue in initial brief claim of error deemed waived on appeal holding an appellant who raised an issue for the first time in his reply brief waived the claim