MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Richard Velas-co 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, *** and we affirm.

Velasco contends that his right to due process was violated because he was denied parole in violation of the terms of his plea agreement. Specifically, Velasco contends, first, that his plea agreement set forth a determinate 15-year sentence, and, second, that the prosecutor violated his plea agreement when describing Velasco’s crime before the Board. To the extent that Velasco’s contentions are not foreclosed by Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam), they fail because the California court’s rejection of these claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law, nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. *548 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1, 6 n. 3, 107 S.Ct. 2680, 97 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) (construction of state court plea agreements is matter of state law).

AFFIRMED.