
    Steven Eric WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 10-15163.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 8, 2011.
    Steven Eric Walker, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Andrew R. Woodrow, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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 Steven Eric Walker 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.

Walker contends that the Board’s 2004 and 2005 decisions to deny him parole were 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Walker raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Walker’s request for additional briefing is denied.

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