FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEO GONZALES, No. 08-17719
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02342-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
B. CURRY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Leo Gonzales 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).
Gonzales contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was
not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights.
This claim is not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. See Swarthout v.
Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam).
Gonzales has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right with respect to his uncertified claims. We accordingly decline to certify
them. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-17719