
    John H. PIRTLE, Petitioner—Appellee, v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS; D.L. Runnels; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellants.
    No. 07-16097.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Sept. 19, 2011.
    Ann Catherine MeClintock, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Jennifer Anne Neill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Christopher John Rench, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Dane R. Gillette, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellants.
    Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

On remand from the Supreme Court, California state prisoner John Pirtle renews his argument that the California Parole Board’s 2002 denial of his parole violated his federal right to due process. In light of Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam), we hold that Pirtle’s right to due process was not violated. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment granting the writ of habeas corpus.

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