Mosley

MEMORANDUM

Ron Mosley appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a) and affirm.

I

Mosley argues that the state court decision upholding the Governor’s parole determination rested on an unreasonable application of California’s “some evidence” requirement and an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. Federal habeas relief is not available for errors of state law, and the correct application of California’s “some evidence” standard is not mandated by the federal Due Process Clause. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 861 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Due process requires only that the prisoner be afforded “an opportunity to be heard” and “provided a statement of reasons why parole was denied.” Id. at 862 .

Mosley had an opportunity to be heard and to contest the evidence against him at his parole hearing before the Board of Prison Terms, and the Governor, after considering the same evidence that was before the Board, provided written reasons for reversing the Board’s finding that Mosley was eligible for parole.…