FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD E. KARR, No. 10-16515
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00510-RSL-
JLW
v.
D. K. SISTO, Warden and BOARD OF MEMORANDUM *
PAROLE HEARINGS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Richard E. Karr 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 affirm.
*
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).
Karr 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
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); Pearson v.
Muntz, No. 08-55728, 2011 WL 1238007, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2011). Because
Karr raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16515