MEMORANDUM**

Samuel Garrett Pierce, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction after a court trial, for assault with a semiautomatic firearm, assault with a firearm, willful discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner likely to cause injury or death, and willful discharge of a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review de novo the district court’s denial of Pierce’s petition, Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

I

For the reasons stated by the district court, we hold that Pierce was not denied effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-90, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

II

We recognize that Pierce has raised uncertified issues in his opening brief, which we construe as a motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability. So considered, we deny the motion. Ninth Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.