T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J AME S C AR L I N, P et i t i on er- A pp el l ee , v. V I N C E C U L L E N , A c tin g W a r d e n , R e s p o n d e n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 16813 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 6 - c v - 0 4 1 4 5 - SI ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S us a n I l l s t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W ar den V i nce C ul l en appeal s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof Jam es C ar l i n’ s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 p et i t i on for habeas corpus. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 2253, a nd w e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd. 

# FI LED JU N 09 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyh e ld , C a r lin ’s p e titio n is tim e ly . T h e s ta tu te 1 o f lim ita tio n s w a s tr ig g e r e do n th e d a te h is a d m in is tr a tiv e ap p e a l w a s d e n ie d . See R e dd v . Mc G r a th , 343 F . 3d 1077, 1082 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . A ppl y i ng s t a tut oryt ol l i ng t o the peri od of t i m e duri ng w hi ch hi s s t at e pet i t i on s w er e pendi ng af t erthatdat e, a nd gap t ol l i ng t o the s hortpe r i od of t i m e be tw e e n hi s pe t i t i ons , hi s f e de r a l pe t i t i on is tim e ly . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . 08- 16813 2 T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed C ar l i n rel i ef on the grou nd thatthe st at e c ou rt s had unr e a s onabl yappl i e d c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d f e de r a l l a w c onc e rni ng due pr oc e s s , by fa i l i ng t o sat i sf

y C al i forni a’ s “ som e e vi dence” s t andard. W hi l e thi s app ea l w as pe ndi ng, the S upr e m e C ourtde c i de d Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 131 S . C t . 859 ( 2011) (percuri am ). In thatca se , the C ou rthel d that“ i ti s no feder al concern . . . w hether C a l i f orni a ’ s ‘ s om e e vi de nc e ’ rul e of j udi c i a l r e vi e w ( apr oc e dur e be y ond w ha tthe C on st i tut i on dem ands) w as corr ec t l y app l i ed. ” I d. at8 6 3 . W e acco rd i n g l y rev erse the grantof re l i ef

. C a r l i n a r gue s tha tr e ve r s a l i s notr e qui r e d be c aus e the f e de r a l C ons t i tut i on re qu i re s ashow i ng of som e e vi dence of future dangerousness bef ore s t at es can d e n yp a r o le , a n ds u c h e v id e n c e w a s la c k in g h e r e . T h is c o n te n tio n is f o r e c lo s e d . See id. a t 8 6 2 - 6 3 ; P e a rs o n v . Mu n tz , __F . 3d __ , 20 11 W L 12 38 00 7, at*5 (9th C i r. A p r . 5 , 2 0 1 1 ) . W e rem an dfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s o n C arl i n ’ s rem ai n i n g cl ai m s. 1 RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.