*1 Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Julio Cesar Morales appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a *2 habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen , 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Morales contends that his second trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by promising, but failing to obtain, a more favorable plea offer. The Arizona Court of Appeals’ rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter , 562 U.S. 86, 100-103 (2011).

We treat Morales’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood , 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-17388

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).