22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d8,MEMORANDUM Petitioner-appellant Ralph Albert Marcus appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. The district court granted a Certificate of Appealability on two issues: (1) whether Marcus’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were violated by the prosecution’s alleged withholding of exculpatory cassette tapes; and (2) whether Marcus’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated by his trial counsel’s performance, under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Marcus and his counsel do not brief either certified issue in this appeal. Instead, Marcus’s briefing focuses exclusively on a third, uncertified issue concerning the pretrial removal of his public defender for a conflict of interest. That claim is unmeritorious and we decline to address it. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e). Having waived the two certified issues by failing to brief them, Marcus does not present any colorable claim on appeal. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50a,

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-appellant Ralph Albert Marcus appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

The district court granted a Certificate of Appealability on two issues: (1) whether Marcus’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were violated by the prosecution’s alleged withholding of exculpatory cassette tapes; and (2) whether Marcus’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated by his trial counsel’s performance, under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Marcus and his counsel do not brief either certified issue in this appeal. Instead, Marcus’s briefing focuses exclusively on a third, uncertified issue concerning the pretrial removal of his public defender for a conflict of interest. That claim is unmeritorious and we decline to address it. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).

Having waived the two certified issues by failing to brief them, Marcus does not present any colorable claim on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.