Case Name: Jon Randall CRAWLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M. KRAMER, Warden, and Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 515 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 10-16574
Parties: Jon Randall CRAWLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M. KRAMER, Warden, and Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 515
Pages: 706–706

Head Matter:
Jon Randall CRAWLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M. KRAMER, Warden, and Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-16574.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 22, 2013.
Jon Randall Crawley, Represa, CA, pro se.
Michael Patrick Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Patricia Webber Heim, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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 Jon Randall Crawley 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. We review de novo a district court's decision to deny a habeas petition, see Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
Crawley contends that the Board of Parole Hearings's 2006 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. He also challenges the validity of the "some evidence" standard. 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Crawley raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.