Case Name: Alfred Eugene MACHADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom CAREY; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-18
Citations: 263 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 07-15828
Parties: Alfred Eugene MACHADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom CAREY; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 263
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Alfred Eugene MACHADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom CAREY; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-15828.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 18, 2008.
Alfred Eugene Machado, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Daniel J. Kossick, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Alfred Eugene Machado appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Machado contends that the California Board of Prison Terms' 2000 decision finding him unsuitable for parole resulted in his being incarcerated beyond the expiration date of his sentence, in violation of his plea agreement. We conclude that the California state court's decision denying this claim was not objectively unreasonable. See Himes v. Thompson, 386 F.3d 848, 852-53 (9th Cir.2003); cf. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971).
Machado was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e); see also Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.