MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Omar Lizarraga-Ceda-no appeals pro se from the district court’s *784 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.