Association. Even if these facts were rele vant, this court, as a general rule, “will not enlarge the record on appeal with evidence not before the district court.” McIntosh v. Partridge, 540 F.3d 315, 327 (5th Cir.2008). Even liberally construed, Legrand’s brief does not adequately set forth an argument on appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 28; Stevens, 535 Fed.Appx. at 359; see also Jacobson v. Clay, 72 Fed.Appx. 999 (5th Cir.2003) (finding inadequate appellants’ briefs that “do not cite authority and consist of con-clusory assertions”). Although Legrand attempts to articulate claims of error in her reply brief, this court does not normally entertain arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See, e.g., In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 620 F.3d 455, 459 n. 3 (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203
holding an argument made in plaintiffs reply brief but not in their opening brief waived holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived