Case Name: Albert Alvin WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-12
Citations: 471 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 09-17866
Parties: Albert Alvin WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 697–697

Head Matter:
Albert Alvin WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-17866.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 12, 2012.
Albert Alvin Williams, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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 Albert Alvin Williams 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, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the Board of Parole Hearings's 2006 decision that he was unsuitable for parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. The only 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Williams raises no 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.