Case Name: Policarpio SANCHEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Guy HALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-11
Citations: 231 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 06-35825
Parties: Policarpio SANCHEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Guy HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 696–697

Head Matter:
Policarpio SANCHEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Guy HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-35825.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2007 .
Filed May 11, 2007.
Steven T. Wax, FPD, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Lynn David Larsen, Esq., Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee. .
Before: RYMER, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Poliearpio Sanchez-Cruz appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
Sanchez-Cruz argues that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel when she: (1) failed to have him tested for sexually transmitted diseases for which he, but not the victim, purportedly would test positive; and (2) did not object to the admission of evidence arising from a prior assault conviction. Even assuming the first basis were exhausted, his trial counsel's failure to obtain such testing was not prejudicial, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), under any standard of review. There is no indication beyond his own speculation that testing would have affected the outcome. As to the second basis, the state court's determination that the failure to object was a reasoned tactical decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland.
We deny Sanchez-Cruz's request for an evidentiary hearing because it is supported only by "allegations that are conclusory and wholly devoid of specifics." Campbell v. Wood, 18 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.