355, 364 (5th Cir.2005) (finding that defendant satisfied the third prong of the plain error test)). In the instant case, the district court could impose the same sentence on remand, and it is not reasonably probable that Gonzalez would receive a lesser sentence on remand; therefore, as in Jones, we need not delve into the question whether the two "can be harmonized or which standard governs.” Id. at 438. 1 . In summarizing his argument, Gonzalez identifies another issue: whether the district court violated his rights to trial, confrontation, and due process with respect to the underlying drug charges. Gonzalez has waived this argument by not supporting it with any authority or including it in the body of his brief. See United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n. 3 (5th Cir.2000)
holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument holding that an argument raised only in a footnote of a brief is waived holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived holding that the appellant waived this argument