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NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2011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