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:T4ec,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Rene Quintanil-la appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss. Quintanilla contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’ 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en bane). Now the Supreme Court has held that 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 Quintan-illa raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). We deny as moot Quintanilla’s motion to lift the stay. DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T51e,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Rene Quintanil-la appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Quintanilla contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’ 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en bane). Now the Supreme Court has held that 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 Quintan-illa raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).

We deny as moot Quintanilla’s motion to lift the stay.

DISMISSED.

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