William Williams v. John C. Marshall

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WILLIAM WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN C. MARSHALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-56417
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-04159-CAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted Febuary 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Williams appeals from the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56417 2
Williams contends that the Governor’s 2004 decision reversing the Board of
Prison Terms’s decision finding him suitable for parole was not supported by
“some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal
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 --