Tejada

MEMORANDUM **

Angel Tejada pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine and carrying a firearm in connection with a drug offense. He argued in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that his attorney at sentencing “did not do enough to contest an incident used for relevant conduct involving ... [crack] cocaine.” The district court rejected Tejada’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

We first note the Certificate of Appealability (COA) issued in this case limits our review to an issue not raised or deeid *610 ed in the district court. Rather than vacate the COA as improvidently granted, see Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 730 (9th Cir.2004), we will expand the COA to include the issue decided below and briefed on appeal, see Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1031-32 (9th Cir.2005).

To prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Tejada was required to show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. See United States v. Thomas, 417 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Tejada contends his attorney should have argued it was not…