Case Name: Ronald K. MAUZEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-21
Citations: 384 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 07-16040
Parties: Ronald K. MAUZEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
Ronald K. MAUZEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-16040.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 21, 2010.
Ronald K. Mauzey, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Denise Alayne Yates, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Ronald K. Mauzey 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.
Mauzey contends that the Board's 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. Following an independent review of the record, see Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir.2003), we conclude that the state court's conclusion that some evidence supports the Board's decision was not objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-64, 568-69 (9th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2004 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms ("the Board") to deny parole violated due process. We deny a certificate of appealability as to Mauzey's claim that the denial of parole violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).