MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jeremy Gauthier 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.

Gauthier challenges a disciplinary decision in which he was found guilty of trafficking narcotics on prison grounds. Gau-thier first contends that the hearing officer presiding over the disciplinary proceeding was biased. The record does not demonstrate that the hearing officer was biased or suppressed evidence of innocence. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 647, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).

Gauthier also contends that he did not receive adequate notice of the charges. This contention fails because Gauthier was provided with enough information about the factual basis for the charge “to enable him to marshal the facts and prepare a defense.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); see also Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir. 1987).

The state court’s conclusion that some evidence supports the decision was not objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

Finally, Gauthier raises an equal protection claim that he did not present to the district court. We decline to consider this claim for the first time on appeal. See *712 Sophanthavong v. Palmateer, 378 F.3d 859, 872 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.