Case Name: Robert Michael HOLLENBACK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-08
Citations: 667 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 13-17464
Parties: Robert Michael HOLLENBACK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and GARBIS, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.