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:T468,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Santos Chavez appeals pro se 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. Chavez contends that the Board’s 2006 decision to deny him parole 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 case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Chavez raises no procedural challenges, we affirm. Chavez further requests that the certificate of appealability be expanded. Because Chavez fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d, 1098, 1104 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T49a,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Santos Chavez appeals pro se 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.

Chavez contends that the Board’s 2006 decision to deny him parole 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 case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Chavez raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Chavez further requests that the certificate of appealability be expanded. Because Chavez fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d, 1098, 1104 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

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