Case Name: Chris SALGADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony P. KANE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 744
Docket Number: No. 08-16491
Parties: Chris SALGADO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony P. KANE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 744–745

Head Matter:
Chris SALGADO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony P. KANE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-16491.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Chris Salgado, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Patricia Webber Heim, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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 Chris Salgado 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.
Salgado contends that the Board's 2003 decision to deny him parole 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, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Salgado raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Further, because Salgado has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.