[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 18, 2007
No. 05-15765 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos. 02-02117-CV-T-30-TGW & 00-00097-CR-T-3
ALEJANDRO TAMAYOS-RAMOS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 18, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Tamayos-Ramos, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas corpus petition. On
appeal, Tamayos-Ramos makes several arguments regarding why his plea was not
knowing and voluntary or is not enforceable, including primarily that the
government breached the agreement. However, Tamayos-Ramos presents no
argument regarding the issue raised by this Court’s certificate of appealability
(“COA”). Specifically, Tamayos-Ramos never discusses whether the district court
erred in denying his § 2255 motion to vacate because the claims raised were barred
by the collateral attack waiver contained in his plea agreement.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-32, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”), governs this appeal because Tamayos-
Ramos filed his petition after the effective date of the AEDPA. Under the
AEDPA, appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253; Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998).
Additionally, Tamayos-Ramos is a pro se litigant and is thus entitled to a lenient
interpretation of his arguments on appeal. See GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of
Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998).
Careful review of Tamayos-Ramos’s appellate brief reveals that he has not
addressed the issue on which the COA was granted, namely, whether the district
court erred in denying his § 2255 motion to vacate because the claims raised were
2
barred by the collateral attack waiver contained in his plea agreement. Instead,
Tamayos-Ramos argues the merits of one of his underlying claims: that the
government breached the plea agreement. Even construing Tamayos-Ramos’s
brief liberally, there is no indication that he presents any arguments regarding the
issue on appeal. Therefore, Tamayos-Ramos has abandoned the issue on which we
granted the COA. See Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992)
(concluding that an appellant abandons an issue not addressed on appeal).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Tamayos-Ramos’s § 2255
petition.
AFFIRMED.
3