
    Stephen LIEBB, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Vince CULLEN, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 09-17872.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2011.
    
    Filed April 14, 2011.
    James J. Brosnahan, Samuel S. Song, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    Denise A. Yates, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Warden Vince Cullen appeals the district court’s grant of Stephen Liebb’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Liebb argued that there was not “some evidence” to support the denial of his parole. In light of Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam), we hold that Liebb’s federal right of due process was not violated. Liebb does not argue that he was denied an opportunity to speak at his hearing and contest the evidence against him, that he was denied access to his record in advance, or that he was not notified of the reasons why parole was denied. See id. at 862. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of his habeas petition.

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