Case Name: Tony O. AREMU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B. CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-28
Citations: 430 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 09-55350
Parties: Tony O. AREMU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B. CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
Tony O. AREMU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B. CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-55350.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed April 28, 2011.
Tony O. Aremu, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Amanda Lloyd, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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 Tony O. Aremu 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 dismiss.
After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability ("COA") is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that 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 Aremu has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.