Dehaven v. Tilton
Leroy R. DeHAVEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Secretary, Respondent-Appellee
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Carlos T. Bea, Richard C. Tallman
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEROY R. DEHAVEN, No. 07-56290 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-00602-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner LeRoy R. DeHaven appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253,1 and we affirm.
DeHaven challenges the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-63, 569 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
1 We certify on our own motion the issue of whether the California Board of Prison Terms’ (“Board”) 2004 decision to deny DeHaven parole was supported by some evidence. We decline to issue a certificate of appealability as to DeHaven’s remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
2 07-56290