AFFIRMED. 1 . The second issue raised by Goolsby on appeal is that his plea was not knowing and voluntary as he was not advised that the firearm could be used to enhance his sentence. However, in this section of his brief Goolsby argues that he was denied effective assistance counsel because his lawyer advised him to reject the government’s offer to plead guilty to Count Two and to plead guilty to Count One. Goolsby contends that had he pled guilty to Count One, his sentence would have been shorter. As Goolsby has not requested that the Certificate of Appealability (COA) be expanded to include this ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we decline to address this issue because it is outside the narrow scope of the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Goolsby alternatively claims that if in
holding that appellate jurisdiction is limited to the issues contained in the certificate of appealability holding a coa is granted on an issuebyissue basis thereby limiting appellate review to those issues holding that the district courts failure to enumerate specific issues for review in a coa does not deprive us of appellate jurisdiction holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which coa has been granted holding that appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa