seven prior armed-robbery cases as unrelated under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) and, thus, in calculating defendant’s criminal history category based upon those seven distinct prior sentences. For the preceding reasons, we AFFIRM defendant’s sentence. 1 . Sentencing calculations relied upon the 2001 edition of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 2 . Defendant also purports to appeal his judgment of conviction on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to sustain it, and that the district court committed plain error by permitting an I.R.S. agent to testify both as an expert and to prejudicial hearsay. However, defendant has presented no argument on these issues in his brief and, thus, has failed to preserve them for appeal. See Sommer v. Davis, 317 F.3d 686, 691 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In any event, we note that the record is
holding that where an appellant fails to raise arguments regarding an issue on appeal that issue is deemed abandoned holding that an appellant abandons an issue for purposes of appeal where he fails to argue it in his briefs holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that a party abandons claims that he does not argue in his brief holding that a habeas petitioner abandons the claims he does not address on appeal