[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JANUARY 18, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o . 05-15765

CLERK

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

D . C. Docket Nos. 02-02117-CV-T-30-TGW & 00-00097-CR-T-3

A L E JA N D R O TAMAYOS-RAMOS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Florida

(J a n u a ry 18, 2007)

B efo re ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

A lejan d ro Tamayos-Ramos, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

d istrict court's dismissal of his 28U.S.C. § 2255 habeas corpus petition. On ap p eal, Tamayos-Ramos makes several arguments regarding why his plea was not k n o w in g and voluntary or is not enforceable, including primarily that the g o v ern m en t breached the agreement. However, Tamayos-Ramos presents no arg u m en t regarding the issue raised by this Court's certificate of appealability ( "C O A " ). Specifically, Tamayos-Ramos never discusses whether the district court e rr ed in denying his § 2255 motion to vacate because the claims raised were barred b y the collateral attack waiver contained in his plea agreement.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

1 0 4 -3 2 , 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) ("AEDPA"), governs this appeal because TamayosR am o s filed his petition after the effective date of the AEDPA. Under the A E D P A , appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA. 28U.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 in terp retatio n of his arguments on appeal. See GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of E s ca m b ia , Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998).

C arefu l review of Tamayos-Ramos's appellate brief reveals that he has not a d d r e ss ed the issue on which the COA was granted, namely, whether the district c o u r t erred in denying his § 2255 motion to vacate because the claims raised were b arred by the collateral attack waiver contained in his plea agreement. Instead, T am ayo s-R am o s argues the merits of one of his underlying claims: that the g o v er n m en t breached the plea agreement. Even construing Tamayos-Ramos's b rief liberally, there is no indication that he presents any arguments regarding the issu e on appeal. Therefore, Tamayos-Ramos has abandoned the issue on which we g ran ted the COA. See Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (co n clu d in g that an appellant abandons an issue not addressed on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Tamayos-Ramos's § 2255 p e titio n .

AFFIRMED.