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 by 9th 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 DE NN I S B . AN DE R S ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. TE RE SA A. SC HW ARTZ , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 06- 17211 D. C . No . C V- 0 6 - 0 2 4 8 1 - T HE 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 T he l t on E . H e nde r s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner D enni s B . A nd er son app ea l s f rom the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve 

# FI LED JU N 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSW e c e rt i f y f orappe a l , on ourow n m ot i on, the i s s ue s of w he the rthe 2004 1 de c i s i on of

the C a l i f

orni aB oa r d of

P r i s on T e rm s ( “ the B oa r d” ) t o de nypa r ol e f or f oury e a r s vi ol a t e d due pr oc e s s , a nd w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd i t s j udgm e ntpur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 59 (e ) ( “ R ul e 59(e)” ). 06- 17211 2 j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 1 A nd er son con t ends thatthe B oard’ s 200 4 d ec i si on t o d eny hi m parol e w as n o t s u p p o rte d b y “s o m e e v id e n c e ” a n d th e r e f o r e v io la te d h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . T he s t a t e c ourtdi d notunr e a s onabl yc onc l ude tha ts om e e vi de nc e s upport s the B o a r d ’s d e c is io n . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ; s e e a ls o H a y w a rd v . M a rs h a ll , N o. 06- 5 5 3 9 2 , 2 0 1 0 W L 1 6 6 4 9 7 7 , a t * 1 1 , * 1 7 ( 9 th C ir . A p r . 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 ) . A n d e r s o n f

u rth e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d b yd e n y in g h is m o tio n to a l t e rora m e nd i t s j udgm e ntpur s ua ntt o R ul e 59( e ) . B e c aus e A nde r s on’ s m ot i on ra i se d an argum entfor the fi rs tt i m e thatre as on abl y c ou l d h ave been ra i se d ear l i er i n the l i t i ga t i on, the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the m o tio n . Se e Mc Q ui l l i on v . D unc an , 3 4 2 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 1 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; see a l so Carr ol l v . N akatani , 34 2 F . 3d 93 4, 94 5 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). A n d e r s o n ’s c la im b a s e d o n th e B o a r d ’s d e c is io n to d e f e ras u b s e q u e n t p a r o le hear i ng for f

ou r y ears i s notcogn i zabl e bec ause he fa i l ed t o rai se thatcl ai m before06- 17211 3 th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. See Cacop erdo v. D em osthenes , 37 F . 3d 50 4, 50 7 (9th C i r. 19 94 ). AF F I RME D.