MEMORANDUM
Former California state prisoner Curtis Lee Sledge appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Sledge contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’s 2006 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. This claim is foreclosed. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863,178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam).
Sledge further argues that his due process rights were violated because the Board was biased. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. See 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.