Case ID: f-appx_399/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victor GALINSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-16415.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 7, 2010.
    Victor Galinski, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Denise A. Yates, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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 Victor Galinski 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.

Galinski contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 563 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).

Galinski’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Galinski’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2005 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings ("the Board”) to deny parole violated due process.