Lam

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Tanh Huu Lam appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i). We have *893 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 , 2255. We review a district court’s dismissal of a § 2255 motion de novo, see United States v. Valdez, 195 F.3d 544, 546 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The sole issue upon which Lam was granted a certifícate of appealability is whether he proeedurally defaulted on his claims because he did not raise the voluntariness and intelligence of guilty plea on direct appeal. The district court properly determined that nine of Lam’s ten claims relate to a deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of his guilty plea, and thus are waived. See United States v. Foreman, 329 F.3d 1037, 1038 (9th Cir.2003); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 , 93 S.Ct. 1602, 1608 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973).

Lam’s remaining claim is that his guilty plea was not voluntary and intelligent. Lam proeedurally defaulted this claim by failing to raise it on direct review. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 , 118 S.Ct.…