MEMORANDUM **

Warden Vince Cullen appeals from the district court’s grant of James Carlin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we reverse and remand.

The district court granted Carlin relief on the ground that the state courts had unreasonably applied clearly established *608 federal law concerning due process, by failing to satisfy California’s “some evidence” standard. While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). In that case, the Court held that “it is no federal concern ... whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 863. We accordingly reverse the grant of relief.

Carlin argues that reversal is not required because the federal Constitution requires a showing of some evidence of future dangerousness before states can deny parole, and such evidence was lacking here. This contention is foreclosed. See id. at 862-63; Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011).

We remand for further proceedings on Carlin’s remaining claims. 1

REVERSED and REMANDED.