Miguel Moreira-Alfaro v. ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIGUEL MOREIRA-ALFARO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr.,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-16401
D.C. No. 3:06-CV-04416-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Miguel Moreira-Alfaro appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
JUL 06 2010
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
California Board of Parole Hearings’ 2005 decision to deny Moreira-Alfaro parole
violated due process.
08-16401 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial1
of Moreira-Alfaro’s federal habeas petition, see Doody v. Schriro, 596 F.3d 620,
634 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), and we affirm.
The state court did not unreasonably conclude that “some evidence”
supports the California Board of Parole Hearings’ 2005 decision to deny Moreira-
Alfaro parol. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d
546, 563 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
We reject the State’s argument that Moreira-Alfaro does not have a due
process liberty interest in parole. See Hayward, 603 F.3d at 561-63.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --