Case Name: Gary SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Warden; James Davis, Chairman, Board of Parole Hearings, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-16
Citations: 421 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 08-15587
Parties: Gary SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Warden; James Davis, Chairman, Board of Parole Hearings, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
Gary SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Warden; James Davis, Chairman, Board of Parole Hearings, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-15587.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 16, 2011.
Gary Smith, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Andrew R. Woodrow, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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 Gary Smith appeals pro se from the district court's judg ment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Smith contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 2003 decision to deny him parole for five years was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights.
After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal 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, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Smith raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a certificate of appealability cannot issue. Further, because Smith has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.