Court Opinion

ID: 215685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-04-29 00:02:02+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:25.292218
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 28 2011

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TONY O. AREMU,                                   No. 09-55350

               Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:06-cv-06158-CJC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
B. CURRY, Warden,

               Respondent - Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                    Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 20, 2011 **

Before:        RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       California state prisoner Tony O. Aremu 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 dismiss.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) 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, 131 S.

Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam). Because Aremu has not has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

      DISMISSED.

                                           2                                    09-55350