
    Khalifah E.D. SAIF’ULLAH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 06-17389.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued Aug. 12, 2010.
    Resubmitted May 17, 2011.
    Filed May 18, 2011.
    William Gordon Kaupp, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Jennifer Anne Neill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, David N. Sunada, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA— Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    
      Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

In 1980, Khalifah E.D. Saifullah was convicted of kidnaping for ransom with a firearm and was sentenced to seven years to life in prison. In July 2000, the California Board of Prison Terms (“Board”) again denied him parole because (1) the commitment offense was carried out in a “dispassionate and calculated manner which demonstrated an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering”; (2) prior to his conviction he had a record of violence; and (3) he had received fourteen write-ups for prison violations. After the California courts denied him relief, Saifullah sought federal habeas relief. The district court denied the petition, finding that there was “some evidence” to support the Board’s denial of parole. We do not reach the merits of the district court’s finding of “some evidence,” but affirm pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam).

While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout. Therein, the Court stated that “it is no federal concern here whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 863. It held that the Federal Due Process Clause requires a California inmate to receive only “an opportunity to be heard and ... a statement of the reasons why parole was denied,” and noted that the “correct application of the State’s ‘some evidence’ standard” is not required by the Federal Due Process Clause. Id. at 861-62; see also Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.2011).

Here, the record shows that Saifullah had the opportunity to be heard at the 2000 hearing and was given a statement of the reasons for the denial of parole. On this record, and in light of Swarthout, Saifullah has not demonstrated that the state court’s denial of relief “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

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