Isiah Daniels v. D.k. Sisto

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).
EG/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISIAH DANIELS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D.K. SISTO,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-16257
D.C. No. CV-04-05123-MHP
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Isiah Daniels appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EG/Research 07-16257 2
As a threshold matter, we deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. Daniels does not require a certificate of appealability under 28
U.S.C. § 2253 to challenge the Board of Parole Hearings’ administrative decisions
regarding his parole. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005)
(per curiam).
Daniels contends that his due process rights were violated when he was not
granted parole within nine years of his sentencing. The California courts’ denial of
this claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as
established by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(1). As the district court correctly concluded, the judge’s statements at
sentencing regarding parole were not part of the plea agreement. Cf. Brown v.
Poole, 337 F.3d 1155, 1159-61 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding prosecutor’s oral promise
to defendant at plea colloquy prior to court’s acceptance of plea was part of plea
agreement).
We construe Daniels’ argument regarding the validity of his guilty plea as a
motion to reconsider our prior denial of a certificate of appealability as to this
issue. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(d)-(e); see also
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --