Case Name: Alejandro BELLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-15
Citations: 443 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 09-17666
Parties: Alejandro BELLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
Alejandro BELLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-17666.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 15, 2011.
Alejandro Bello, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General (SAC), Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
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 Alejandro Bello 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.
Bello contends that his due process rights were violated by the Board's 2006 decision finding him unsuitable for parole, because the decision 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, 868, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Bello raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, we affirm.
We construe appellant's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certifícate 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.