*562 MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Foster appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The district court dismissed Foster’s ha-beas petition on the basis that it was an unauthorized second or successive petition. The court granted a certificate of appeala-bility on the issue of whether Foster needed permission to file the second petition given that the first petition was denied as untimely. See, e.g., Cook v. Ryan, 688 F.3d 598, 608 (9th Cir. 2012). Foster has not addressed this issue on appeal and has thereby waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal. See Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir. 2007).

We treat Foster’s allegations regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered DNA evidence, and cumulative error, as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

Foster’s motion to dismiss the answering brief is denied.

AFFIRMED.