Case Name: Milo W. STRAUSBAUGH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Jr., Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 228 F. App'x 798
Docket Number: No. 05-55793
Parties: Milo W. STRAUSBAUGH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Jr. , Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 798–799

Head Matter:
Milo W. STRAUSBAUGH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Jr. , Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-55793.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 20, 2007.
Milo W. Strausbaugh, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Nicholas N. Paul, Esq., Heather L. Bushman, Dag, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Robert L. Ayers, Jr. is substituted for his predecessor Jeanne Woodford, as Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin. See Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Milo W. Strausbaugh appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the denial of parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Despite Strausbaugh's contention to the contrary, there is some evidence in the record supporting the parole board's denial of parole. See Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 (holding that there is no due process violation if there is some evidence in the record that could support disciplinary board's conclusion). We agree with the district court's conclusion that the state court's decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sass, 461 F.3d at 1129.
AFFIRMGED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.