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:T455,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Gregory Galaz 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. Galaz contends that the Board’s 2004 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Galaz raises no procedural challenges, we affirm. We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include Galaz’s uncertified claims of breach of the plea agreement and violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T487,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Gregory Galaz 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.

Galaz contends that the Board’s 2004 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Galaz raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include Galaz’s uncertified claims of breach of the plea agreement and violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).

AFFIRMED.

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