Case Name: Wendell STUART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-13
Citations: 442 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 08-16127
Parties: Wendell STUART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
Wendell STUART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-16127.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 13, 2011.
Ann Catherine Mcclintock, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Stephen Peter Acquisto, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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 Wendell Stuart appeals the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Stuart contends that the Board of Prison Term's 2001 .decision to deny him 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Stuart raises no federal 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.