Case Name: Nathaniel WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Claude E. FINN, Warden and Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-21
Citations: 411 F. App'x 96
Docket Number: No. 09-16534
Parties: Nathaniel WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Claude E. FINN, Warden and Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 96–98

Head Matter:
Nathaniel WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Claude E. FINN, Warden and Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-16534.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 21, 2011.
Nathaniel Williams, Tracy, CA, pro se.
Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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 Nathaniel Williams 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, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the California Board of Parole Hearings denied him due process when it found him unsuitable for parole and failed to set a primary term. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that "some evidence," including evidence of conduct post-dating his incarceration for the commitment offense, supports the Board's decision to deny Williams parole. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 563 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).
Williams also contends that the Board's decision was based on a "no parole" policy. The state court's rejection of this contention was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, and was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
To the extent Williams raises uncertified issues, we construe such arguments as a motion to broaden the certificate of appeal-ability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.