Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n. 1 (10th Cir.2007). 2 . In this application, Mr. Ciocchetti asserts that his attorneys were ineffective not only for failure to competently cross-examine Mr. Ferguson, but also for "fail[ure] to investigate the facts and interview witnesses who would have verified” his account. Aplt. Combined Opening Br. & COA Appl. at 17. Beyond this cursory reference, however, Mr. Ciocchetti makes no effort to develop his failure-to-investigate claim, and, therefore, we will not address it further. See Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir.2007) ("[W]e routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant’s opening brief.”); see also Mathews v. McKune, 133 Fed.Appx. 512, 514 (10th Cir.2005) . 3 . Mr. Ciocchetti faults the district court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal
B. recognizing that the appellants claim on appeal had been abandoned because although his motion for a coa  briefly asserted the claim he did not brief the issue
C. holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal
D. holding that issues not raised in an appellants initial brief are deemed abandoned
E. holding that petitioners claim asserted in a subsequent brief was not waived due to omission from the coa application
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.