Rose

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Marco Rose appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ (Board) decision finding him unsuitable for parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

California prisoners whose sentences provide for the possibility of parole have a “constitutionally protected liberty interest in the receipt of a parole release date,” and a parole board’s decision to deny parole deprives a prisoner of due process if it is not supported by “ ‘some evidence.’ ” Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 850-51 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Sass v. Calif. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1128-29 (9th Cir.2006)); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Rose contends that the “some evidence” standard should not apply to denial-of-parole cases. Rose further contends that even if the “some evidence” standard does apply, the Board’s reliance on the unchanging facts of his commitment offense deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process because there was no nexus between the Board’s findings and…