Huey Granger appeals the jury verdict returned against him on August 27, 2009, *467 in which the jury found that the settlement agreement he entered into with the City of Pearl and various police officers was enforceable against him. Granger’s brief consists of one paragraph, without citation to the evidence presented at trial or to relevant authorities.

Granger is proceeding pro se, and his pleadings are accordingly construed liberally. See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994). Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Such contentions and citations are required so that the court can determine if there is “sufficient evidentiary foundation” to hold that the district court committed error. United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009) Even pro se appellants must reasonably comply with this requirement. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Granger fails to properly argue or present issues in his appellate brief, we consider those issues to be abandoned. United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992); Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988) (“ [Arguments must be briefed to be preserved.”). Because Granger has abandoned all issues on appeal, his appeal is without arguable merit. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 233 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.