release as part of the issue on appeal. But the argument portion of the brief frames the claimed procedural sentencing error in terms of the court’s failure to explain either the 480-month custodial sentence or its reasons for rejecting the requested downward variance. The closest Hill comes to asserting an argument relevant to the supervised release term is his statement that, “[i]t was also a violation of the law not to give reasons for rejecting a request for downward variance and upwardly depart on supervised release and use key words and phrases to justify the upward departure.” (Appellant’s Br. at 31). This simply is not enough to raise the issue sufficiently to entitle Hill to appellate review by this court. See Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). We thus hold that Hill has waived appellate
holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue holding that a single sentence in an opening brief asserting a district courts alleged error is insufficient to raise on appeal any meritsbased challenge to the district courts ruling holding that a party abandoned an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief