Case Name: Dennis GARBUTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-21
Citations: 462 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 08-17545
Parties: Dennis GARBUTT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 462
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
Dennis GARBUTT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
No. 08-17545.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
Dennis Garbutt, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Heather M. Heckler, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, 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 Dennis Garbutt 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.
Garbutt contends that the Board's 2004 decision to deny him parole was not sup ported 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -,-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 868, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Garbutt raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include Garbutt's uncerti-fied claim that he was deprived of the benefits of his plea agreement as a result of the Board's decision finding him unsuitable for parole. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.