Anthony Sneed 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTHONY SNEED,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. P. KANE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-15061
D.C. No. CV-05-04109-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Anthony Sneed appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
AUG 02 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 the1
Governor’s 2004 decision to reverse the Board of Prison Terms’ decision to grant
parole violated due process. The state has fully briefed the issue that we certify for
appeal.
07-15061 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we reverse and remand.1
Sneed contends his commitment offense does not support the Governor’s
decision in light of the passage of time and evidence of his rehabilitation. An
independent review of the record reveals that the state court unreasonably
concluded that some evidence supports the Governor’s decision. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d); Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206, 1216 (9th Cir. 2010); Himes v.
Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603
F.3d 546, 562 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“The prisoner’s aggravated offense does
not establish current dangerousness ‘unless the record also establishes that
something in the prisoner’s pre- or post-incarceration history, or his or her current
demeanor and mental state’ supports the inference of dangerousness.”) (quoting In
re Lawrence, 190 P. 3d 535, 555 (Cal. 2008)). Therefore, we reverse the district
court and remand with instructions to grant the writ.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --