Case Name: Armik MARKARIAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James YATES; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-06
Citations: 453 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 07-16290
Parties: Armik MARKARIAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James YATES; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 671–671

Head Matter:
Armik MARKARIAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James YATES; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-16290.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 6, 2010.
Armik Markarian, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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 Armik Marka-rian appeals pro se from the district court's judgment summarily dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Marka-rian challenges, among other things, the California Board of Parole Hearings' 2005 decision to deny him parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Because Markarian challenges the district court's final order in a habeas proceeding, a certificate of appealability ("COA") is required before an appeal may be taken. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c); Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). In his briefing on appeal, Markarian raises arguments that were not presented to the district court. We construe this briefing as a motion to issue a COA. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1; see also Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.2006) ("Assuming arguendo that the Certificate of Appealability encompasses this claim, Young has waived it by failing to raise it before the District Court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. The district court denied a COA, and we initially denied a COA as unnecessary. A COA is, however, now necessary to pursue this appeal. See Hayward, 603 F.3d at 554.