Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to a district court’s evidentiary rulings,- an appellant is required to denote with “speeific ity with record references” the allegedly erroneous ruling and the improperly excluded evidence. United States v. Cates, 251 F.3d 1164, 1167 (8th Cir.2001). Watson, however, failed to cite to the district court’s ruling in the record, and as is our praetice-without any arguments or citations to the record that would assist us in judging the merits of his claim of error-we decline to address it. United States v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507, 1517 n. 3 (8th Cir.1995) With regard to the objectionable evidentiary rulings at Watson’s trial, we will only address those sufficiently identified and discussed in Watson’s brief. See, e.g., Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740 (8th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). We review evidentiary rulings made at trial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue (B) holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief (C) holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue (D) holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue (E) holding that failure to discuss an issue in an appellate brief constitutes abandonment of that issue
Output (English): holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief