
    Ricardo H. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55129.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 8, 2011.
    Ricardo H. Robinson, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Jane Catherine Malich, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
    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 Ricardo H. Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Robinson contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that 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 Robinson raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Further, because Robinson has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. Id.

Robinson’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

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