22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T41b,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Mario Castillo 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. The State’s argument that California inmates do not have a due process liberty interest in parole is foreclosed by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 561-63 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the California Board of Parole Hearings’ 2006 decision to deny Castillo parole because the most recent psychological evaluation indicated that without further treatment and education, Castillo posed a substantial risk to the community. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Hayward, 603 F.3d at 563 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3. . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the California Board of Parole Hearings’ 2006 decision to deny parole violated due process.24:T44d,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Mario Castillo 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.

The State’s argument that California inmates do not have a due process liberty interest in parole is foreclosed by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 561-63 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).

The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the California Board of Parole Hearings’ 2006 decision to deny Castillo parole because the most recent psychological evaluation indicated that without further treatment and education, Castillo posed a substantial risk to the community. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Hayward, 603 F.3d at 563 .

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3. . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the California Board of Parole Hearings’ 2006 decision to deny parole violated due process.