
    Jose Humberto MAGANA-TORRES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Amy MILLER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-16804.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 11, 2014.
    
    Filed July 2, 2014.
    Edgar Eugene Page, Page & Page Attorneys at Law, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      Carlos Antonio Martinez, Kenneth Norman Sokoler, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and HAYES, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Humberto Magaña-Torres, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his conviction for several crimes, including home invasion and attempted murder. We dismiss.

None of the grounds for relief in Magana-Torres’ Opening Brief are encompassed within the certificate of appealability issued by the district court. We construe Magana-Torres’ Opening Brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1 (e); see also Schneider v. McDaniel, 674 F.3d 1144, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2012). So construed, the motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (“The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (“[Ujntil a [certificate of appealability] has been issued federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of appeals from habeas petitioners.”).

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