Karriece Davis, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for credit for time served and denial of his motion for reconsideration. Davis’s notice of appeal in this case states that he wishes to appeal the order denying his motion for reconsideration, but his appellate brief in this case discusses the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from judgment from which Davis has filed a separate notice of appeal.

An appellant’s brief must contain a statement of all of the issues presented for review. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6). We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). A pro se appellant nonetheless still abandons an issue when he fails to offer argument on the issue in his brief. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Davis has not raised any argument in his brief challenging the district court’s denials of his motion for credit for time served and his. motion for reconsideration. He thus has abandoned any challenge to those denials. See id. Accordingly, we must affirm because Davis has not shown that the district court erred by denying his motion for credit for time served or his motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED.