Case Name: Gustavo GOMEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Secretary, Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-28
Citations: 459 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 10-55860
Parties: Gustavo GOMEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Secretary, Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
Gustavo GOMEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Secretary, Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-55860.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
Filed Nov. 28, 2011.
Gustavo Gomez, Florida City, FL, pro se.
Amanda Lloyd, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, 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 Gustavo Gomez appeals from the district court's judgment denying and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir.2005).
Gomez contends that the Board of Prison Terms's 2007 decision finding him unsuitable for parole is not supported by some evidence. Even assuming that his petition is timely, Gomez is not entitled to relief because the record reflects that Gomez received all process that was due. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.