Case Name: Thomas SCHUSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, CVSP Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-13
Citations: 523 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 10-17597
Parties: Thomas SCHUSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, CVSP Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Thomas SCHUSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, CVSP Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-17597.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 13, 2013.
Thomas Schuster, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Kasey E. Jones, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, 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 Thomas Schus-ter appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the Board of Parole Hearings' ("Board") decision denying him parole. We dismiss.
By order dated April 21, 2011, this court summarily affirmed the district court on the only claim certified for appeal: whether the denial of parole based on the "some evidence" rule violated Schuster's due process rights. In supplemental briefing, Schuster contends that the Board's denial of parole violates the terms of his plea agreement. We construe Schuster's supplemental brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. The record does not support Schuster's argument that he was promised that he would be granted parole. Therefore, because Schuster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to this claim, Schuster's motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.