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 H onor abl e J ohn R . G i bs on, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s C i r c ui tJ udge f or ** the E i ghth C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. 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 R I C HA R D E AS T MAN, P et i t i on er- A pp el l ee , v. J OH N M ARSHALL, R e s p o n d e n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 07- 56099 D . C. N o . CV - 0 4 - 0 4 5 2 5 - PSG 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P hi l i p S . G ut i e rr e z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 3, 2008 S ubm i s s i on W i thdr a w n M a y16, 2008 R e s ubm i tt e d A pr i l 26, 2010 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : O ’ S C A N N L A I N a nd G R A B E R , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd G I B S O N , S e ni or C i rc ui tJudg e. ** 

# FI LED MA Y21 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

W a r de n J ohn M a r s ha l l appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng R i c ha r d E a s tm a n’ s pe t i t i on f oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus . T he f

a c t s a r e know n t o the p a rtie s , a n d w e d o n o t r e p e a t th e m h e r e e x c e p t to th e e x te n t n e c e s s a ry . I

“ ‘ [S ] om e e vi dence’ of future dangerousness” i s a“ s i ne qua non f orde ni a l of parol e i n C al i forni a. ” H a y w a rd v . M a rs h a ll , — F . 3d — , 2010 W L 1664977, a t*10 ( 9th C i r . A pr . 22, 2010) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng In re L aw re nce , 190 P . 3d 535, 549 (C al . 20 08 ); I

n r e Sh a p u tis , 190 P . 3d 573, 582 ( C a l . 2008) ) . I n H a yw a rd , we e xpl a i ne d tha ton f

e de r a l habe a s r e vi e w , w e “ ne e d onl yde c i de w he the rthe C al i forni a j ud i ci al deci si on approv i ng the go vernor’ s dec i si on re j ec t i ng parol e w as a n ‘ unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on’ of the C a l i f

orni a‘ s om e e vi de nc e ’ r e qui r e m e nt , or w as ‘ base d o n an u nrea sonabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i gh tof the evi dence. ’ ” I d. at*1 1 (qu ot i ng 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1)-( 2) (f oo tno t e om i tt ed)) . H e r e , th e g o v e rn o rr e v e r s e d th e p a r o le b o a r d ’s d e c is io n to g r a n t p a r o le b e c au s e h e b e lie v e dth a t “E a s tm a n c o n tin u e s to p o s e as ig n if ic a n t r is ko f

d a n g e rto the pu bl i c s af

ety” gi ven the gravi ty of the offens e, E as tm an’ s a tt em pt s t o m i ni m i ze h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e c r im e b yc h a n g in g h is s to ryr e p e a te d ly , h is u n w illin g n e s s to a c c e ptr e s pons i bi l i tyf

orthe c r i m e , hi s uns t abl e s oc i a l hi s t ory , hi s l a c k of un ders t andi ng abou tthe causat i ve fa ct ors l ea di ng up t o the cr i m e, and h i s hi st oryE a s tm an ’s r e q u e s t f o rju d ic ia l n o tic e is d e n ie d a s m o o t. 1 3 of s ubs t a nc e abus e . B e c aus e the r e c or d s upport s the gove rnor ’ s c onc l us i on, the st at e c ou rt s’ deci si on s thatE as tm an w as prop er l y deni ed parol e w as no tan un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of the “ som e e vi dence” s t andard, no r w as i tan u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e . Se e id . II A c c o r d in g ly , w e R E V E R S E th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n a n d R E M A N D w ith i ns truc t i ons tha tE a s tm a n’ s pe t i t i on f orw r i tof

habe a s c orpus be di s m i s s e d. 1