Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Michael HOLLENBACK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 13-17464
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 6, 2016  San Francisco, California
    FILED July 8, 2016
    Robert Michael Hollenback, ASPC— Arizona State Prison Complex—Florence, Florence, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Jonathan Bass,' AGAZ—Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and GARBIS, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Hollenback appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition challenging his Arizona conviction for molestation of a child. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 and review de novo. Matylinsky v. Budge, 577 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009).

The state courts reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), when they held that trial counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to request a lesser-included attempt jury instruction that conflicted with Hollenback’s defense that he “did not try to touch” the child. Defense counsel is not required to request instructions that are inconsistent with the defense. See Matylinsky, 577 F.3d at 1092; Butcher v. Marquez, 758 F.2d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1985).

The request to expand the certificate of appealability is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided fay 9th Cir. R. 36-3.