Harry W. Barton 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARRY W. BARTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT AYERS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-15939
D.C. No. CV-06-03646-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges
FILED
JAN 19 2011
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
2005 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings to deny parole violated
due process. We decline to issue a certificate of appealability as to Barton’s
remaining claims.
07-15939 2
California state prisoner Harry W. Barton appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.1
Barton contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’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, 562-63 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --