Giovinco

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Frank Lorenzo Giovinco appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the California Board of Prison Terms’ (the “Board”) decision finding him unsuitable for parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Giovinco contends that the 2001 decision by the Board finding him unsuitable for parole was based on insufficient evidence and thus violated his right to due process. In the parole context, due process requirements are satisfied if some evidence supports the Board’s decision and that evidence bears some indicia of reliability. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir.2003). The Board’s bases for finding Giovinco unsuitable for parole satisfied these requirements. See id. at 916 (upholding denial of parole based solely on gravity of offense and conduct prior to imprisonment).

Giovinco next contends that the delay in holding the 2001 parole suitability hearing violated his constitutional rights. The state court found that Giovinco was partially responsible for the delay and that his due process rights were not violated. Federal courts grant habeas relief for delay…