Victor Galinski v. BEN CURRY, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VICTOR GALINSKI,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BEN CURRY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-16415
D.C. No. 3:06-CV-06524-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Victor Galinski appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
OCT 07 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 2005 1
decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings (“the Board”) to deny parole
violated due process.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Galinski 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 v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546,
563 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Galinski’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Galinski’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --