Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit into evidence the audiotape of the November 7, 1996 drug transaction recorded by the undercover DEA Agent. See United States *11 v. Patrick, 248 F.3d 11, 20 (1st Cir. 2001); United States v. Nichols, 808 F.2d 660, 664 (8th Cir. 1987). We therefore grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance.

In so doing, we note that appellant does not raise any discernable challenge to the propriety of his term of incarceration or supervised release. To the extent he vaguely alludes to possible additional issues in footnote 7 of his brief, his cursory references are unsupported by any developed argumentation and are therefore deemed waived. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).

Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c).