
    Ralph Albert MARCUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrell G. ADAMS; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 09-15410.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
    
      Marylou Elin Hillberg, Marylou Hill-berg, Attorney at Law, Sebastopol, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Ralph Albert Marcus, pro se.
    Justain Riley, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-appellant Ralph Albert Marcus appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

The district court granted a Certificate of Appealability on two issues: (1) whether Marcus’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were violated by the prosecution’s alleged withholding of exculpatory cassette tapes; and (2) whether Marcus’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated by his trial counsel’s performance, under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Marcus and his counsel do not brief either certified issue in this appeal. Instead, Marcus’s briefing focuses exclusively on a third, uncertified issue concerning the pretrial removal of his public defender for a conflict of interest. That claim is unmeritorious and we decline to address it. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).

Having waived the two certified issues by failing to brief them, Marcus does not present any colorable claim on appeal.

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