Newland

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Chester Johnson (“petitioner”) appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the denial of a habeas petition. Tanner v. McDaniel, 493 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir.2007). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) governs our review. Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 204, 207 , 123 S.Ct. 1398 , 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003). Under AEDPA, we grant relief if the state court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court law, or was “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). If a state court adjudicates the merits but does not provide its reasoning, we conduct an independent review of the record. Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081, 1088-89 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

Petitioner contends that the Board’s 1995 decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights because it was not supported by “some evidence.” A denial of parole to a prisoner must be supported by “some evidence” of the prisoner’s threat to public safety. Hayward v.…