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:T47d,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Markee Dion Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the forfeiture of behavioral time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. To the extent Carter contends there was no evidence to support the disciplinary decision finding him guilty of conspiracy to traffic and distribute a controlled substance, the record reflects there was “some evidence” supporting the disciplinary decision. Accordingly, the state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985), nor based on unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether Carter's due process rights were violated because the disciplinary decision was not supported by "some evidence.”24:T4aa,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Markee Dion Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the forfeiture of behavioral time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

To the extent Carter contends there was no evidence to support the disciplinary decision finding him guilty of conspiracy to traffic and distribute a controlled substance, the record reflects there was “some evidence” supporting the disciplinary decision. Accordingly, the state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985), nor based on unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether Carter's due process rights were violated because the disciplinary decision was not supported by "some evidence.”