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 Derek Sylvester appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Sylvester contends the district court abused its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on his claim. After de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the record reveals Sylvester was not diligent in developing the evidence in his state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(2); Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir.1999). Sylvester argues that the State has breached his plea agreement by capping his custody credit eligibility at 15%. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261-62 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts based on 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. 36-3.24:T4af,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Derek Sylvester appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Sylvester contends the district court abused its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on his claim. After de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the record reveals Sylvester was not diligent in developing the evidence in his state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(2); Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir.1999).

Sylvester argues that the State has breached his plea agreement by capping his custody credit eligibility at 15%. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261-62 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts based on 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.