Ronald E. Dennis v. Ben Curry

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RONALD E. DENNIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BEN CURRY,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-55443
D.C. No. CV-06-04031-ABC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald E. Dennis appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
OCT 28 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 some1
evidence of current dangerousness supported the California Board of Parole
Hearings’s 2004 decision to deny parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546,
554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We decline to certify for appeal Dennis’s
remaining contentions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (certificate of appealability
requires “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”).
07-55443 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.1
Dennis contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’s 2005 decision to deny
him parole violated his due process rights. Our review of the record indicates that
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). Dennis’s contention that the Board relied
only on the commitment offense in finding him unsuitable for parole is belied by
the record. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an
evidentiary hearing. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007).
Dennis’s requests for appointment of counsel, judicial notice, and an
evidentiary hearing are denied. All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --