Case Name: Santos Lopez REYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-12
Citations: 266 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 06-56571
Parties: Santos Lopez REYES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
Santos Lopez REYES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-56571.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 4, 2008 .
Filed Feb. 12, 2008.
Santos Lopez Reyes, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
Vivian Fu, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Warren P. Robinson, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Theodore M. Cropley, Esq., Office of the Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA for Respondenb-Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The state court wasn't unreasonable, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), in holding that petitioner wasn't prejudiced by wearing the stun belt, see Gonzalez v. Pliler, 341 F.3d 897, 903 (9th Cir.2003), because "the other evidence of [petitioner's] guilt at trial is so overwhelming that it renders the constitutional error harmless," Hughes v. Borg, 898 F.2d 695, 702 (9th Cir.1990). And petitioner isn't entitled to an evidentiary hearing in federal court, as there is no indication in the record that he has sought "an evidentiary hearing in state court." Bragg v. Galaza, 242 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 435, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.