Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): show that the proffered reason for his termination is unworthy of credence. See Combs, 106 F.3d at 1538. Finally, even if the Plaintiffs had shown that the Defendants’ proffered reason for the termination had been false, they failed to establish that racial discrimination was the real reason for his firing. See Brooks, 446 F.3d at 1163. B. Clark’s Racial Discrimination Claim Here, the Plaintiffs have not challenged the district court’s conclusion that Clark failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to the racial discrimination claim brought under Title VII. Hence, any challenges to the grant of summary judgment on Clark’s discrimination claims are limited to the count brought under § 1981. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). As to the § 1981 discrimination claim, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that appellant abandoned argument by failing to argue it in body of brief (B) holding that a habeas petitioner abandons the claims he does not address on appeal (C) holding that an appellant abandons an issue for purposes of appeal where he fails to argue it in his briefs (D) holding that a party abandons claims that he does not argue in his brief (E) holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief
Output (English): holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief