
    Michael A. PUSKAC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, James Crosby, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-15357.
    D.C. Docket No. 02-60403 CV-DLG.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 29, 2005.
    Michael B. Cohen, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Melynda Layne Melear, Attorney General’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before BLACK, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Michael Puskac is a state prisoner who is currently incarcerated for grand theft. He was initially convicted of both burglary and grand theft, however his burglary charge has been dismissed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Puskac filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court. Puskac argued, inter alia, that his counsel was constitutionally deficient.

The district court denied relief and granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the following ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims: (1) failure to adequately move for judgment of acquittal; (2) failure to investigate the value of the stolen items; (3) failure to object to the jury instruction concerning the burglary charge; and (4) failure to file a motion to recuse and/or petition for writ of mandamus when a continuance was denied. Puskac moved to expand the COA, and this Court granted the motion on the following issue only: “Whether the district court erred in denying as a state law issue not cognizable in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition appellant’s claim that ‘[h]e received an illegal sentence when the court dismissed the burglary charge, because nothing was left to support the charge of grand theft.’ ” We have reviewed the record and the arguments, and we conclude the district court did not err in denying Puskac’s federal habeas petition.

AFFIRMED.  