Case Name: Stephen LIEBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vince CULLEN, Acting Warden, Acting Warden, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-12
Citations: 427 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 08-17080
Parties: Stephen LIEBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vince CULLEN, Acting Warden, Acting Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Stephen LIEBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vince CULLEN, Acting Warden, Acting Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17080.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2011.
Filed April 14, 2011.
Stephen Liebb, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Denise A. Yates, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Stephen Liebb appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Liebb argues that there was not "some evidence" to support the denial of his parole. In light of Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam), we hold that Liebb's federal right of due process was not violated. Liebb does not argue that he was denied an opportunity to speak at his hearing and contest the evidence against him, that he was denied access to his record in advance, or that he was not notified of the reasons why parole was denied. See id. at 862. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of his habeas petition.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.