With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (listing required processes). See R. at 1052. But he changes course in his opening appeal brief, asserting instead that the processes applied in civil-commitment proceedings are required before defendants can terminate him from the SOTMP. He did not make that argument in the district court and consequently the district court did not address it. Therefore, he has failed to preserve this argument for consideration on appeal. See Simmat v. U.S. Bur. of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225, 1240 (10th Cir.2005) (declining to consider pro se argument raised for the first time on appeal). Nor will we address the argument that Mr. Firth made in the district court, but fails to renew on appeal. See Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). We proceed, then, to Mr. Firth’s contentions

A: holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue
B: holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief
C: holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue
D: holding omission of issue in opening brief generally forfeits appellate consideration
D.