Rose

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Steven W. Rose appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

We reject as foreclosed the State’s contention that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal because Rose did not obtain a certificate of appealability. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Rose contends that the California Board of Prison Terms’ (the “Board”) decision to deny him parole violates his due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rose concedes that he has incurred disciplinary violations while in prison. Furthermore, the record of the 2002 parole suitability hearing conducted by the Board both substantiates this concession and provides other evidence to support the Board’s decision to deny Rose parole. We therefore conclude that “some evidence” supports the Board’s decision, and hence that there was no due process violation. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356…