Thomas Schuster v. J. F. SALAZAR, CVSP 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
THOMAS SCHUSTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. F. SALAZAR, CVSP Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-17597
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00903-AWI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Thomas Schuster appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the
Board of Parole Hearings’ (“Board”) decision denying him parole. We dismiss.
By order dated April 21, 2011, this court summarily affirmed the district
FILED
JUN 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17597 2
court on the only claim certified for appeal: whether the denial of parole based on
the “some evidence” rule violated Schuster’s due process rights. In supplemental
briefing, Schuster contends that the Board’s denial of parole violates the terms of
his plea agreement. We construe Schuster’s supplemental brief as a motion to
expand the certificate of appealability. The record does not support Schuster’s
argument that he was promised that he would be granted parole. Therefore,
because Schuster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right as to this claim, Schuster’s motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th
Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --