Case Name: Eduardo Aguilar ROMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John F. SALAZAR, Acting Warden substituted for M. Muntz, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-19
Citations: 461 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 08-55729
Parties: Eduardo Aguilar ROMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John F. SALAZAR, Acting Warden substituted for M. Muntz, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 461
Pages: 532–532

Head Matter:
Eduardo Aguilar ROMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John F. SALAZAR, Acting Warden substituted for M. Muntz, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-55729.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 19, 2011.
Eduardo Aguilar Roman, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Amanda Lloyd, AGCA-Office of The California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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 Eduardo Aguilar Roman appeals pro se 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.
Roman contends that the Governor's 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Roman raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.
We construe appellant's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.