
    Anthony Louis PELLEGRINI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ivan BARTOS; Terry Goddard; Barbara Lawall, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 07-17028.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 19, 2010.
    Anthony Louis Pellegrini, Hinton, OK, pro se.
    Kathryn Ann Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Anthony Louis Pellegrini appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Pellegrini contends the district court erred by concluding that he failed to exhaust a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate, prepare, and cross-examine an important state witness. Our review of the record indicates the district court correctly concluded that Pellegrini did not exhaust this claim, and that it is now procedurally defaulted. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32, 124 S.Ct. 1347, 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004); see also Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1230-31 (9th Cir.2002). Pelle-grini has failed to establish cause and prejudice to excuse the default, or that the failure to consider the claim will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Franklin, 290 F.3d at 1231.

Pellegrini raises additional uncertified claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which we construe as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied because he has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     