Albert Alvin Williams v. D. K. SISTO, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALBERT ALVIN WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D. K. SISTO, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-17866
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02692-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Albert Alvin Williams appeals 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.
FILED
MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17866 2
Williams contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’s 2006 decision that he
was unsuitable for parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore
violated his due process rights. The only right at issue in the parole context is
procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not
whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.
Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam). Because Williams raises no procedural
challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --