Moore

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Alvin Moore appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a § 2254 petition, see McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Appellee contends that we lack jurisdiction because there is no federally protected interest in parole release in California, and thus, Moore has failed to state a federal claim. As the appellee acknowledges, this contention is foreclosed by Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir.2006).

Moore contends that the California Board of Prison Terms’ (the “Board”) decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights. We disagree. We conclude that there was no due process violation because some evidence of several factors supports the Board’s decision. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 .

Moore next contends that the Board violated his due process rights by violating uniform term principles set forth in CaLPenal Code § 3041(b). We disagree. See…