With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not warrant dismissal of this claim. Sean McGuigan and Ronald Mancuso clearly would have reason to admit to less than what was actually stolen and that the criminal enterprise terminated sooner than it actually did. His assertion that the thefts continued through only September of 2004 would limit his own liability for his participation in the enterprise and would potentially lead to a shorter term of incarceration. Such admissions clearly are not binding on Plaintiff in this civil action. Further, the Court finds that these documents are not properly considered at the motion to dismiss stage because Plaintiff only makes reference to these events in two isolated instances in the complaint, in what is a clear attempt to lay a foundation for when it 232 F.Supp.2d 273, 276 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>); Madu, Edozie & Madu, P.C. v. SocketWorks Ltd.

A: holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief
B: holding that an extraneous document was not incorporated by a brief reference to it in one paragraph of the complaint
C: holding an argument made in plaintiffs reply brief but not in their opening brief waived
D: holding issue waived where matter not addressed beyond reference in heading in brief
B.