MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Derreck Sun-derland 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. § 2253, 1 and we affirm.

Sunderland contends that he was deprived of the benefits of his plea bargain as a result of the Board’s 2003 decision finding him unsuitable for parole. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261-62, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing because Sunderland did not set forth a colorable claim for relief. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007).

We decline to grant a certificate of ap-pealability as to whether Sunderland’s no contest plea was not knowing and volun *705 tary, and whether the government breached his plea agreement by filing a statement pursuant to Cal.Penal Code § 1203.01, referencing a prior offense. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

We grant Sunderland’s request for judicial notice, filed on June 15, 2009.

AFFIRMED.