Case Name: Michael Craig SLATER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. William SULLIVAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellant, and James E. Tilton, Secretary of California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-20
Citations: 400 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 09-17784
Parties: Michael Craig SLATER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. William SULLIVAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellant, and James E. Tilton, Secretary of California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 224–226

Head Matter:
Michael Craig SLATER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. William SULLIVAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellant, and James E. Tilton, Secretary of California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Respondent.
No. 09-17784.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.
Filed Oct. 20, 2010.
Marc Grossman, Law Offices of Marc E. Grossman, Upland, CA, for Petitioner-Ap-pellee.
Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellant and Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.
The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Mon tana, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Respondent William Sullivan, Warden, (the "State") appeals the district court's grant of Petitioner Michael Craig Slater's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court held that the State deprived Petitioner of his right to due process when he was denied parole in the absence of "some evidence" of current dangerousness as required by California law. On de novo review, Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc), we affirm.
In a series of recent cases, we have rejected the State's argument that the An-titerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 precludes relief on Petitioner's claim because California's "some evidence" requirement is not "clearly established federal law." Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 563 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc); Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.2010); Pearson v. Muntz, 606 F.3d 606, 608-09 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam). The State argues, in essence, that those cases were wrongly decided, but they bind this three-judge panel. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).
The State does not argue that the Board of Parole Hearings' decision was, in fact, supported by some evidence. We therefore do not consider that question. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (holding arguments not raised in the opening brief generally are waived).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.