FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRENCE O’SULLIVAN, No. 10-15700
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01469-MCE-
JFM
v.
STEVE MOORE, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
**
Submitted September 27, 2011
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Terrence O’Sullivan 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).
O’Sullivan contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 2006 decision to deny
him parole was not supported by reliable 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) (per curiam). Because O’Sullivan raises no federal procedural
challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.