Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar LIZARRAGA-CEDANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-08
Citations: 370 F. App'x 783
Docket Number: No. 07-35846
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar LIZARRAGA-CEDANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 783–784

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar LIZARRAGA-CEDANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-35846.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2010.
Stephanie A. Van Marter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Omar Lizarraga-Cedano, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argumént. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
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.