Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). In her reply brief, Ms. Chediek attempts to defend her right to testify concerning her attorneys’ fees and emotional distress by pointing out that these issues were noted in the magistrate judge’s pretrial order. See United States v. Hougham, 364 U.S. 310, 315, 81 S.Ct. 13, 5 L.Ed.2d 8 (1960) (“That pretrial order, as authorized by Rule 16, conclusively established the issues of fact and law in the case....”); Smith v. Washington Sheraton Corp., 135 F.3d 779, 784 (D.C.Cir.1998); Johnson v. Geffen, 294 F.2d 197, 199-200 (D.C.Cir.1960). Because she made this argument for the first time in her reply brief, it is forfeited. See McBride v. Merrell Dow & Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211 (D.C.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Under the circumstances, the district court’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not reviewable (B) holding arguments first raised in reply brief are forfeited (C) holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived (D) holding that arguments first raised in appellants reply brief were in answer to those raised in appellees brief and therefore refusing to strike those arguments (E) holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief
Output (English): holding that arguments first raised in appellants reply brief were in answer to those raised in appellees brief and therefore refusing to strike those arguments