FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR GALINSKI, No. 08-16415
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-CV-06524-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BEN CURRY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Victor Galinski appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Galinski 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 v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546,
563 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Galinski’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Galinski’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
1
We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2005
decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings (“the Board”) to deny parole
violated due process.