Opinion ID: 595156
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Opportunity to Review Letter

Text: 10 Wilson contends that the Board violated his due process rights by failing to provide him with a copy of a letter written by the prosecuting attorney, which Wilson claims was vindictive. He argues that the Board violated its own rules by failing to allow him access to all the materials considered by the Board. Wilson's contentions lack merit. 11 On federal habeas, [t]he issue for [this court], always, is whether the state proceedings satisfied due process; the presence or absence of a state law violation is largely beside the point. Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919-20 (9th Cir.1991). Inmates are not entitled to be apprised of all the evidence relied upon by a parole board in rendering its decision.... Due process requires no more than an opportunity to be heard and notification of the parole board's reasons for denying parole. Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir.1991) (citation omitted). 12 Here, Wilson was present at the parole hearing, and the Board repeatedly invited him to respond to the evidence presented. The Board verbally and in writing informed Wilson that parole was denied because of Wilson's particularly violent and otherwise dangerous criminal conduct, manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life. Under the standard set forth in Bermudez, Wilson received all the process he was due, notwithstanding the Oregon rule. See Bermudez, 936 F.2d at 1066. 2