
    Eric Jay HOLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David W. MARQUEZ, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-35455.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2009.
    
    Filed July 23, 2009.
    Mary C. Geddes, Esq., Fpdak-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Douglas H. Kossler, Esq., State of Alaska Office of Special Prosecutions & Appeals, Diane L. Wendlandt, Esq., Agak-Office of the Alaska Attorney General (Anchorage) Special Prosecutions & Appeals Division, Anchorage, AK, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alaska state prisoner Eric Jay Holden appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hplden contends that his federal petition was timely because Alaska’s post-conviction procedures for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims are in effect a form of “direct review,” see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), and therefore the one-year limitations period should not have commenced until the conclusion of those proceedings. This contention lacks merit. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.2003); cf. Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 716-17 (9th Cir.2007).

We construe Holden’s briefing of uncer-tified issues as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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