NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
STANLEY KELLEY, No. 09-15939
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01713-ALA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERT K. WONG, Warden;
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Stanley Kelley 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).
Kelley contends that the his due process rights were violated because the
Governor’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some
evidence.” This claim is foreclosed by Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863
(2011) (holding that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is
procedural).
To the extent that Kelley contends that the Governor violated his due
process rights by failing to hold a hearing before reversing the grant of parole by
the California Board of Prison Terms, that contention is foreclosed by Styre v.
Adams, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 2176465, at *1-2 (9th Cir. June 6, 2011) (holding
that Cooke implicitly rejects argument that the Governor was required to hold a
hearing before reversing the Board’s decision granting parole).
Kelly’s remaining claims lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-15939