Mauzey v. Kane , 384 F. App'x 664 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD K. MAUZEY, No. 07-16040
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-03337-MHP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
A. P. KANE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald K. Mauzey 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.
Mauzey contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not
supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights.
Following an independent review of the record, see Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d
848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the state court’s conclusion that some
evidence supports the Board’s decision was not objectively unreasonable. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL
1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010).
AFFIRMED.
1
We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2004
decision of the California Board of Prison Terms (“the Board”) to deny parole
violated due process. We deny a certificate of appealability as to Mauzey’s claim
that the denial of parole violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
2 07-16040