Woods

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Earnest C. Woods, II, 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 and 2253. 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 we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal because Woods has not obtained a certificate of appealability. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Woods contends that the California Board of Prison Terms’s (“the Board”) 2002 decision to deny him parole violates his federal due process rights. After reviewing the record, we conclude that he received all the process due him under governing law, and that the Board’s decision was supported by “some evidence.” See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Sass, 461 F.3d at 1129 . The “some evidence” standard does not allow us to entertain Woods’s contention that the Board did not properly weigh the evidence before it, or neglected to consider evidence that Woods asserts favors granting…