WAGONER v. CAREY, 396 Fed.Appx. 470 (9th Cir. 2010)
Keith WAGONER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden,Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-55899.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted September 13, 2010.[fn*]
Filed September 29, 2010.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2).
Keith Wagoner, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
James Conrad Schroeder, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, George H. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-06142-GHK.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[fn**]
California state prisoner Keith Wagoner appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 2253, [fn1] and we affirm.Page 471
Wagoner contends that the Board of Parole Hearings' 2004 decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights. In light of Wagoner's recent serious disciplinary infraction, the state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board's decision. See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546,563 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Wagoner's requests for oral argument and judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.
[fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[fn1] We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether some evidence of current dangerousness supported the California Board of Parole Hearings' 2004 decision to deny parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55
(9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We decline to certify for appeal Wagoner's remaining contentions. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (certificate of appealability requires "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right").