Dehaven v. Tilton

401 F. App'x 264
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 27, 2010
Docket07-56290
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 401 F. App'x 264 (Dehaven v. Tilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dehaven v. Tilton, 401 F. App'x 264 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner LeRoy R. DeHaven appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. *265 § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, 1 and we affirm.

DeHaven challenges the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-63, 569 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. We certify on our own motion the issue of whether the California Board of Prison Terms’ ("Board”) 2004 decision to deny DeHaven parole was supported by some evidence. We decline to issue a certificate of appealability as to DeHaven’s remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DeHaven v. Cate
179 L. Ed. 2d 660 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
401 F. App'x 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dehaven-v-tilton-ca9-2010.