MEMORANDUM **
Federal prisoner Angel Pena appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Pena contends that his 120-month sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the drug quantity was not admitted or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.*** We previously ad*797dressed and rejected this contention in Pena’s direct appeal, see United States v. Pena, 223 Fed.Appx. 589, 590 (9th Cir.2007), and therefore Pena may not re-litigate it in a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Hayes, 231 F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997).
To the extent that Pena is raising additional arguments, we construe them as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.