Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0647-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George LEDESMA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 09-16671.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2012.
    Roger Sandberg Hanson, Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    
      Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, O’SCANNLAIN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Warden John Marshall contends that the district court erred when it granted George Ledesma’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We agree. When he was denied parole in November 2006, Ledesma received all process that was due to him. See Swarthout v. Cooke,—U.S.—, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Swarthout—decided while this appeal was pending — makes clear that federal habeas relief is not available based on the misapplication of California’s “some evidence” rule of judicial review. See id. at 861-63.

We direct the district court to enter judgment for Marshall and to deny Ledesma’s habeas petition.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.