With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The court said “yes.” Mr. Prieto chose not to testify. Neither the prosecutor nor Mr. Prieto objected to the advisement. In fact, Mr. Prieto’s lawyer thanked the court “very much” for giving the “Curtis advisement,” although he thought it unnecessary. Id. at 511. A Curtis advisement refers to a Colorado Supreme Court case of the same name, People v. Curtis, 681 P.2d 504, 514 (Colo.1984), which explains what “procedural safeguards are ne nd of the road for an argument for reversal not first presented to the district court.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Conclusion The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We deny Mr. Prieto’s pro se motion to supplement the opening brief with additional issues. See United States v. McDermott, 64 F.3d 1448, 1450 n. 1 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). * After examining the briefs and appellate

A: recognizing that appellate courts consistently refuse  to address issues  that are raised for the first time on appeal
B: holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal
C: holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal
D: holding that this courts policy is to address on direct appeal only those issues raised by counsel
D.