With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was whether, in reviewing a COA application to see if an appealable issue exists, we should consider issues that were raised in the district court, but omitted from the COA application. We concluded in Beatty “that the other grounds for relief alleged in [petitioner’s] section 2255 motion have been abandoned for lack of inclusion in the pa pers filed in this Court.” Id. at 632. Beatty relied by analogy on the familiar rule that “issues not discussed in an appellate brief’ are not considered on appeal. Id. at 632. We decline to extend Beatty’s holding to a situation where, as here, we have granted a COA, and a subsequent brief filed by the petitioner raises an additional claim that was presented to the district court. See, e.g., Dellinger v. Bowen, 301 F.3d 758, 765 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); cf. Green v. Mazzucca, 377 F.3d 182, 183 (2d

A: holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived
B: holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal
C: holding that petitioners claim asserted in a subsequent brief was not waived due to omission from the coa application
D: holding that convention against torture claim is waived because it is absent from petitioners brief
C.