Case Name: James Elmond DUVAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.C. KRAMER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-11
Citations: 426 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 09-15126
Parties: James Elmond DUVAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.C. KRAMER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
James Elmond DUVAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.C. KRAMER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-15126.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 11, 2011.
John Hargreaves, Central California Appellate Program, Represa, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
James Elmond Duval, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner James Elmond Duval appeals 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.
Duval contends that the Board of Parole's 2007 denial of parole violated his right to due process because it violated the terms of his plea agreement. This contention is belied by the record. The transcript of the plea colloquy clearly and unambiguously indicates that Duval would first become eligible for parole in approximately "thirteen and one-third years," that parole may never be granted, and that the plea contained no assurance that he would be released on a date certain.
Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on this claim. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007) ("if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.").
Appellee's motion for judicial notice is granted. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir.2002) (judicial notice taken of relevant state court documents with a direct relationship to appeal).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.