Case Name: William WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-22
Citations: 468 F. App'x 752
Docket Number: No. 08-56417
Parties: William WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 752–753

Head Matter:
William WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-56417.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 22, 2012.
William Williams, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Linnea Piazza, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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 William Williams appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the Governor's 2004 decision reversing the Board of Prison Terms's decision finding him suitable for parole was not supported 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Williams raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.