faith, and the district court provided them an opportunity to respond on the merits. See Richey, 632 F.3d at 565 & 565 n. 1. AFFIRMED. *** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 . For the first time on appeal, the parties raise the competency and reliability of certain declarations submitted in the district court. Because neither party raised these evidentiary objections in the district court, we deem them waived. See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.1990) (explaining that to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal, a party must make a timely and specific objection to evidentiary issues before the trial court); see also Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1060, 1066-67 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The Soongs do not argue that the district
holding that a party waives an objection by failing to request a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence before the district court holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection holding that failure to file a postjudgment motion on alleged error of law relating to ruling on exception to the statute of frauds that was committed for first time in the judgment waives any objection to that ruling and that in the absence of any other formal objection the issue is not preserved for appellate review holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding that a party in a habeas case waives an argument by failing to raise it before the district court