
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Joseph FABRICANT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50251
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, April Anita Christine, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Ryunsoo Yang, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Danny Joseph Fabrieant, Pro Se.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R, 36-3.
     