Opinion ID: 2620359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: expansion of coa

Text: 13 Case: 13-11740 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 14 of 16 Ivy also seeks to raise a claim that the State did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he was guilty of violating Florida’s sexual battery law. Ivy asserts that he specifically raised this claim in a motion to expand his COA. The State asserts that this issue is outside of the scope of the COA and, thus, not properly before this Court for review on appeal. A court issuing a COA must “indicate which specific issue or issues,” if any, are covered by the COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998). To obtain review beyond the scope of the COA, the petitioner must file an application to expand the COA “promptly, well before the opening brief is due.” Tompkins v. Moore, 193 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 1999). Arguments outside of the scope of the COA raised in a brief will not be considered as a timely application to expand the COA, and those issues will not be reviewed. Id. Contrary to Ivy’s assertion, he has not properly sought expansion of his COA in either the district court or in this Court. Although Ivy, in his brief to this Court, argues that the COA should be expanded, his request for an expansion of the COA is untimely. See id. Thus, whether the State provided sufficient evidence at trial to convict Ivy is beyond the scope of the COA, and we will not review this 14 Case: 13-11740 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 15 of 16 issue. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Ivy’s § 2254 petition. AFFIRMED. 15 Case: 13-11740 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 16 of 16