Cantu Lopez v. Salazar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 03 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS LEONEL CANTU LOPEZ, No. 07-55676 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-00839-SVW v. MEMORANDUM * J. F. SALAZAR, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 25, 2010 ** Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Leonel Cantu Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 1. Following an independent review of the record, see Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the state court’s conclusion that some evidence supports the Board’s decision was not objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010). Cantu Lopez contends that the Board’s 2005 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, 2010 WL 1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010). Contrary to Cantu Lopez’s contention, both static and dynamic factors support the Board’s determination. See id. at *10. AFFIRMED. 1 We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2005 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny parole violated due process. 2 07-55676