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:T444,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Walter McCottrell appeals 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. McCottrell contends that his due process rights were violated by the Board’s 2004 decision finding him unsuitable for parole, because the decision was not supported by “some 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 ease correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because McCottrell raises no procedural challenges, we affirm. Further, because McCottrell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T476,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Walter McCottrell appeals 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.

McCottrell contends that his due process rights were violated by the Board’s 2004 decision finding him unsuitable for parole, because the decision was not supported by “some 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 ease correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because McCottrell raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Further, because McCottrell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.