
    Byron HIBBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-17044.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 7, 2010.
    Byron Hibbert, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Patricia Webber Heim, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Byron Hibbert appeals pro se 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.

Hibbert 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 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, 563 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).

Hibbert’s request for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2005 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms (“the Board”) to deny parole violated due process. We deny a certificate of appealability , as to Hibbert’s claim that the district court improperly denied his motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
     