Lishon Marcelle Hudson, now federal prisoner #39081-177, has appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, for which he was sentenced in the middle of the guidelines range to a 135-month term of imprisonment and to a four-year period of supervised release. See United States v. Hudson, 422 Fed.Appx. 343 (5th Cir. 2011) (direct appeal).

On this record, Hudson cannot carry his heavy burden of showing that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors in failing to object to the simultaneous application of U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.2 and 4Bl.l(b), the district court would have imposed a more lenient sentence. See Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012); United States v. Wines, 691 F.3d 599, 604 (5th Cir. 2012).

Hudson’s conclusional argument, related to counsel’s failure to object to the attribution to Hudson of relevant conduct in the determination of the drug quantity at sentencing, fails to demonstrate any error by the district court. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 885-89 (5th Cir. 2009).

Because our review is limited to issues for which a certificate of appealability has been granted, other uncertified issues raised by Hudson have not been consid *415 ered. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The judgment is AFFIRMED.