requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence. The Government filed an answer to Mr. Morehead’s § 2254 application. In his response to the Government’s answer, Mr. Morehead relied on Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), to argue he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination. The district court refused to consider the argument because Mr. Morehead did not raise a Sixth Amendment claim in his § 2254 application. In his application to this court for a COA, Mr. Morehead abandons his Brady due process argument and focuses on his Davis Sixth Amendment argument. But the Sixth Amendment claim was absent from the initial § 2254 application and was therefore forfeited. See Pedockie v. Bigelow, 581 Fed.Appx. 698, 700 (10th Cir.2014) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Workman, 695 F.3d 1060, 1077 (10th
holding that claims not raised in a timely postconviction motion are waived holding that issue not raised before the postconviction court was forfeited for the purposes of appeal holding a coa applicant forfeited a claim of error in district courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing by not seeking a hearing in his  2254 proceeding holding claims not raised in  2254 application are forfeited recognizing that  1983 and  2254 proceedings are mutually exclusive so that if a claim can be properly raised in one of those proceedings it cannot be raised in the other type of proceeding