Armik Markarian v. James Yates;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARMIK MARKARIAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES YATES; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 07-16290
D.C. No. CV-07-00162-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Armik Markarian appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment summarily dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
Markarian challenges, among other things, the California Board of Parole
FILED
JUL 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court denied a COA, and we initially denied a COA as1
unnecessary. A COA is, however, now necessary to pursue this appeal. See
Hayward, 603 F.3d at 554.
07-16290 2
Hearings’ 2005 decision to deny him parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253, and we affirm.
Because Markarian challenges the district court’s final order in a habeas
proceeding, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required before an appeal may
be taken. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th
Cir. 2010) (en banc). In his briefing on appeal, Markarian raises arguments that1
were not presented to the district court. We construe this briefing as a motion to
issue a COA. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1; see also
Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Assuming arguendo that
the Certificate of Appealability encompasses this claim, Young has waived it by
failing to raise it before the District Court.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --