Case Name: Abe WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.L. KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 399 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 06-16912
Parties: Abe WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.L. KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
Abe WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.L. KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-16912.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 13, 2010.
Abe Williams, Jr., Mule Creek State Prison, lone, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Mary J. Graves, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Scott C. Mather, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Abe Williams, Jr. 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 Board's 1999 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board's decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-63 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).
Williams also contends that the Board's decision was based on a "no parole" policy and that he was entitled to parole, even though he had been found unsuitable, based on various provisions of the California Penal Code. The California court's rejection of these claims 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); see also Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 & n.3 (9th Cir.2007) (suitability for parole determination under California Penal Code section 3041(b) must precede the setting of a parole release date under California Penal Code section 3041(a)).
We deny Williams' motion for removal of the stay of proceedings as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. We expand the certificate of appealability, on our own motion, to include the issue of whether the 1999 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms ("Board") to deny parole violated due process. We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include any other issues raised by Williams.