George Cosio v. A. P. Kane

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE COSIO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. P. KANE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-15474
D.C. No. CV-05-01966-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner George Cosio appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 20041
decision of the California Board of Prison Terms (“the Board”) to deny parole
violated due process.
07-15474 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.1
Cosio contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not
supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights.
Following an independent review of the record, see Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d
848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the state court’s conclusion that some
evidence supports the Board’s decision was not objectively unreasonable. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL
1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --