Case Name: Ernest MACHADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony KANE, Warden, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-15
Citations: 239 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 06-15463
Parties: Ernest MACHADO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Anthony KANE, Warden, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
Ernest MACHADO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Anthony KANE, Warden, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-15463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007 .
Filed June 15, 2007.
Marc E. Grossman, Law Offices of Marc Grossman, Upland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Scott C. Mather, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Ernest Machado appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court's decision to deny a § 2254 petition, Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Machado contends that the California Board of Prison Terms' (the "Board") decision to deem him ineligible for parole violated his due process rights. We conclude that the Board's decision deeming Machado unsuitable for parole was supported by some evidence in the record and that "given the particular circumstances of [Machado's offense], due process was not violated when [he was] deemed unsuitable for parole prior to the expiration of [his] minimum term[]." See Irons v. Carey, 479 F.3d 658, 665 (9th Cir.2007); Sass, 461 F.3d at 1129. Accordingly, the state court's decision was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.