MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Wilson Chouest appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Chouest contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was not sup *736 ported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, -, 181 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Chouest raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Chouest’s request for further briefing is denied.

AFFIRMED.