
    Gregory GALAZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom E. VAUGHN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-55430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    
      Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
    Roger Sandberg Hanson, Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Jacqueline Mai Lopez, Attorney General, Lora Martin, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Gregory Galaz appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Galaz contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Galaz raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include Galaz’s uncertified claims of breach of the plea agreement and violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     