22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b6,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Thomas Schus-ter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the Board of Parole Hearings’ (“Board”) decision denying him parole. We dismiss. By order dated April 21, 2011, this court summarily affirmed the district court on the only claim certified for appeal: whether the denial of parole based on the “some evidence” rule violated Schuster’s due process rights. In supplemental briefing, Schuster contends that the Board’s denial of parole violates the terms of his plea agreement. We construe Schuster’s supplemental brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. The record does not support Schuster’s argument that he was promised that he would be granted parole. Therefore, because Schuster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to this claim, Schuster’s motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam). DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e3,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Thomas Schus-ter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the Board of Parole Hearings’ (“Board”) decision denying him parole. We dismiss.

By order dated April 21, 2011, this court summarily affirmed the district court on the only claim certified for appeal: whether the denial of parole based on the “some evidence” rule violated Schuster’s due process rights. In supplemental briefing, Schuster contends that the Board’s denial of parole violates the terms of his plea agreement. We construe Schuster’s supplemental brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. The record does not support Schuster’s argument that he was promised that he would be granted parole. Therefore, because Schuster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to this claim, Schuster’s motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.