Case ID: f-appx_445/html/0979-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leo GONZALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B. CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-17719.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2011.
    Leo Gonzales, Pro se.
    Steven Grant Warner, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Leo Gonzales appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Gonzales contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. This claim is not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam).

Gonzales has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his uncertified claims. We accordingly decline to certify them. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

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