Dwight Murry, federal prisoner #45004-079, pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and he was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This court granted COA on the sole issue whether counsel’s alleged failure to advise Murry regarding the possibility of appeal and to file a requested notice of appeal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

On appeal, Murry argues that he should have been granted a downward departure under his plea agreement, that the Government violated his plea agreement, and that counsel was ineffective for allowing the Government to breach the plea agreement. We will not consider these arguments because they exceed the scope of the issue on which COA was granted and because Murry has not requested an expansion of the COA grant. See United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d 429, 430-31 (5th Cir. 1998); Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997).

Murry has made no relevant appellate argument on the sole issue on which COA was granted. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9) requires that an appellant’s argument contain the reasons why he deserves the requested relief, together with citation to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), we nevertheless require arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Issues not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. See id.

AFFIRMED.