Case Name: Leonel CANTU LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-03
Citations: 381 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 07-55676
Parties: Leonel CANTU LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 699–699

Head Matter:
Leonel CANTU LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-55676.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 3, 2010.
Leonel Cantu Lopez, Blythe, CA, pro se.
James Conrad Schroeder, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Leonel Cantu Lopez appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Following an independent review of the record, see Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the state court's conclusion that some evidence supports the Board's decision was not objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-64, 568-69 (9th Cir.2010).
Cantu Lopez contends that the Board's 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board's decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward, 603 F.3d 546, 562-64, 568-69 (9th Cir.2010). Contrary to Cantu Lopez's contention, both static and dynamic factors support the Board's determination. See id. at 561-62.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2005 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny parole violated due process.