for the state and the attorney for the defendant or the defendant when acting pro se may engage in discussions with a view toward reaching an agreement that, upon the entering of a plea of guilty, no contest or guilty but mentally ill to a charged offense or to a lesser or related offense, the attorney for the state will move for dismissal of other charges, or will recommend or not oppose the imposition of a particular sentence, or will do both. The court shall not participate in any such discussions. N.M. R.Crim. P. 5-304(A)(l). 2 . Holt argued below that the judge’s actions also violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, but he failed to persist in that argument before this Court. Therefore, we need not consider it. See Phillips v. James, 422 F.3d 1075, 1080 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). But even if we did, we agree with the
holding courts do not consider points not raised in briefs holding that we generally may not consider issues not raised before the bia holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs holding that where issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs a court will not consider the merits thereof