Case Name: Frederick SWANSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. BUTLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 228 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 04-56474
Parties: Frederick SWANSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. BUTLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
Frederick SWANSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. BUTLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-56474.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 20, 2007.
Frederick Swanson, Represa, CA, pro se.
Beneth A. Browne, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Frederick Swanson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the denial of parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Despite Swanson's contentions to the contrary, there is some evidence in the record supporting the parole board's denial of parole. See Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 (holding that there is no due process violation if there is some evidence in the record that could support disciplinary board's conclusion). We agree with the district court's conclusion that the state court's decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sass, 461 F.3d at 1129.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.