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:T4fa,MEMORANDUM Leslie Charles Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm the district court. Cohen contends that the district court erred by rejecting his various ineffective assistance of counsel claims, including that his trial counsel lacked experienced and had never previously tried a federal case. We agree with the district court that Cohen has not established deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We reject Cohen’s remaining contentions concerning ineffective assistance of counsel for the reasons stated by the district court. See id. Cohen also raises numerous uncertified issues. We construe such argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam). Cohen’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief received on October 23, 2009. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T531,

MEMORANDUM

Leslie Charles Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm the district court.

Cohen contends that the district court erred by rejecting his various ineffective assistance of counsel claims, including that his trial counsel lacked experienced and had never previously tried a federal case. We agree with the district court that Cohen has not established deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We reject Cohen’s remaining contentions concerning ineffective assistance of counsel for the reasons stated by the district court. See id.

Cohen also raises numerous uncertified issues. We construe such argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

Cohen’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief received on October 23, 2009.

AFFIRMED.

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