
    Ramon BIRL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-16886.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed April 29, 2011.
    Daniel J. Broderick, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Ann Catherine McClintock, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Andrew R. Woodrow, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RYMER, 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 Ramon Birl appeals 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.

Birl 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 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, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011). Because Birl raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

We deny Birl’s request for supplemental briefing.

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