Leonel Cantu Lopez v. J. F. SALAZAR, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LEONEL CANTU LOPEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. F. SALAZAR, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-55676
D.C. No. CV-06-00839-SVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Leonel Cantu Lopez appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUN 03 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 20051
decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny parole violated due
process.
07-55676 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Following an independent review of the record, see1
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).
Cantu Lopez contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole
was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process
rights. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports
the Board’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward, 2010 WL
1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010). Contrary to Cantu Lopez’s
contention, both static and dynamic factors support the Board’s determination. See
id. at *10.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --