Sharol J. CULVERSON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Dawn DAVISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellant, 237 F. App'x 174

MEMORANDUM We assume without deciding that the denial of parole must be supported by “some evidence.” Under California law, which is the source of the petitioner’s “liberty interest,” the nature of the eommitment offense alone can suffice as “some evidence” justifying a denial of parole. There is no “clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” that limits the number of times a parole board may deny parole to a murderer based on the brutality and viciousness of the commitment offense. REVERSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456-57, 105 S.Ct. 2768 (1985); see also Jancsek v. Oregon Bd. of Parole, 833 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9th Cir.1987). . See Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 12, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979); Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377-78, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987); see also McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir.2002). . See Cal.

Pen.Code § 3041(b); 15 C.C.R. §§ 2400-02; see also In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1094-96, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 104 P.3d 783 (2005); In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 682-83, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104, 59 P.3d 174 (2002). . 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). . The dicta in Ninth Circuit cases like Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916-17 (9th Cir.2003), are not holdings of the Supreme Court, as required by Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 649, 654-57, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006), and Schriro v. Landrigan, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 1941-43, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007).