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:T4f0,MEMORANDUM Warden A.P. Kane appeals from the district court’s grant of Celso Leon’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we reverse. While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). In that case, the Court stated that “it is no federal concern ... whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 863 . The federal Due Process Clause requires only that a California inmate receive “an opportunity to be heard and ... a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” See id. at 862 . Leon was afforded an opportunity to be heard and provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. The district court nevertheless granted him relief on the ground that the denial of parole was not supported by “some evidence” of current dangerousness. Because this is not a proper ground for federal habeas relief, we reverse. See Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011). REVERSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T522,

MEMORANDUM

Warden A.P. Kane appeals from the district court’s grant of Celso Leon’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we reverse.

While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). In that case, the Court stated that “it is no federal concern ... whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 863 . The federal Due Process Clause requires only that a California inmate receive “an opportunity to be heard and ... a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” See id. at 862 .

Leon was afforded an opportunity to be heard and provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. The district court nevertheless granted him relief on the ground that the denial of parole was not supported by “some evidence” of current dangerousness. Because this is not a proper ground for federal habeas relief, we reverse. See Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011).

REVERSED.

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