Case ID: f-appx_459/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gustavo GOMEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Secretary, Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-55860.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 28, 2011.
    
      Gustavo Gomez, Florida City, FL, pro se.
    Amanda Lloyd, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, 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 Gustavo Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment denying and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir.2005).

Gomez contends that the Board of Prison Terms’s 2007 decision finding him unsuitable for parole is not supported by some evidence. Even assuming that his petition is timely, Gomez is not entitled to relief because the record reflects that Gomez received all process that was due. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam).

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