Medway

*45 MEMORANDUM *

Samuel Medway appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Further, under Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam), Medway did not need to obtain a certificate of appealability.

Medway has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole. See Cal.Penal Code § 3041(b); Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2006). This court has recognized that the “some evidence” standard articulated in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) is clearly established in the parole context. Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 . Consequently, the relevant question is whether “some evidence” supported the governor’s decision to reverse Medway’s parole.

The governor’s decision was supported by some evidence: (1) the nature and gravity of Medway’s commitment offense; (2) Medway’s failure to develop concrete post-release employment plans; and (3) the danger posed by Medway’s potential relapse into substance abuse.

Under the deferential standards applicable here, this evidence is sufficient to support the…