Lizarraga-Cedano

MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Omar Lizarraga-Ceda-no appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Lizarraga-Cedano contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately challenge 1) the probation officer’s recommended 2-level increase to the offense level; 2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conspiracy conviction; and 3) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his possession conviction.

Each of these contentions lacks merit because Lizarraga-Cedano has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different, but for counsel’s alleged errors. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. 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).

AFFIRMED.

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