
    Jorge Luis TAPANES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of FLORIDA, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-12439
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 30, 2012.
    Jorge Luis Tapanes, McRae, GA, pro se.
    Pam Bondi, Linda S. Katz, Richard L. Polin, Office of the Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jorge Luis Tapanes, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on two issues: 1) whether the district court erred in failing to construe Ta-panes’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; and 2) whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the district court should have transferred the petition, as construed, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where Tapanes’s federal criminal judgment was entered.

Tapanes’s brief on appeal does not address either of these issues. As a result, we conclude that Tapanes has abandoned them. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal ... are deemed abandoned.” (citations omitted)). As for those issues that Tapanes has briefed, we cannot address them. Our precedent makes it clear that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3), our review is “limited to the issues specified in the COA order.” Hodges v. Att’y Gen., State of Fla., 506 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir.2007). The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.  