Case ID: f-appx_79/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Dennis ROUNDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 03-15623.
    D.C. No. CV-01-02377-MCE.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2003.
    
    Decided Oct. 23, 2003.
    Before WARDLAW, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, petitioner’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

George Dennis Rounds, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), and affirm.

Rounds first contends that his right to due process has been violated because the state failed to release him upon completing his minimum term of an indeterminate life sentence. His contention fails because adequate procedural protections were afforded to him since the state’s denial of parole was supported by some evidence. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 903-04 (9th Cir.2002) (stating that the requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision).

Rounds also contends that the California Uniform Determinate Sentence Act violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is applied unevenly to him as compared to other prisoners. This contention lacks merit because Rounds’ assertion is conclusory and he does not supply sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of uneven application. See McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 834-35 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.