MEMORANDUM **

Danny Joseph Fabrieant appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his ex parte request for reimbursement of expenses pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. We affirm.

Fabrieant contends that the district court erred by denying his request for reimbursement of the costs incurred in the preparation of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. The CJA authorizes reimbursement of costs for pro se petitioners seeking ha-beas relief only where the district court determines that the interests of justice “would have required the furnishing of [CJA] representation.” See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 7, Part A, § 310.10.30. Here, the district court previously determined that Fabrieant did not meet the standard for CJA representation in his section 2255 proceeding. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (section 2255 petitioner may be appointed CJA representation where the court “determines that the interests of justice so require”); see also Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[T]here is no constitutional right to counsel at a collateral, post-conviction section 2255 proceeding.”). Therefore, the court correctly determined that nothing in the CJA allows for Fabri-cant to receive the requested reimbursement.

Fabricant’s May 2, 2016, request is denied.

AFFIRMED.