Markee Dion Carter v. ROBERT AYERS, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARKEE DION CARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT AYERS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-17161
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-07398-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Markee Dion Carter appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the forfeiture
FILED
SEP 01 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 Carter’s1
due process rights were violated because the disciplinary decision was not
supported by “some evidence.”
08-17161 2
of behavioral time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we1
affirm.
To the extent Carter contends there was no evidence to support the
disciplinary decision finding him guilty of conspiracy to traffic and distribute a
controlled substance, the record reflects there was “some evidence” supporting the
disciplinary decision. Accordingly, the state court’s rejection of this claim was
neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Superintendent v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), nor based on unreasonable determination of the facts in
light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --