Walmsley

MEMORANDUM **

California State inmate Daniel Earle Walmsley appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He challenges the lawfulness of his sentence imposed after a probation violation hearing in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. We review de novo the district court’s denial of appellant’s petition, Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560, 568 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The Superior Court’s Findings

Appellant argues that the state court of appeal unreasonably applied Gagnon v. Scarpelli 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985), by concluding that “[t]he reporter’s transcript contains substantial, if not overwhelming, evidence to support the court’s finding” that he violated his probation.

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 498 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), established minimum due process requirements for a parole violation hearing, including the right to a hearing by a neutral hearing body, which may be composed of non-lawyers and judges, and a written statement by these factfinders as to the…