MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Keith E. Wiggins 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.

Wiggins contends that the 2006 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) denying his parole was not supported by “some evidence” of current dangerousness 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. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Wiggins raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Wiggins’s motions for judicial notice, received on November 23, 2009, and February 22, 2010, respectively, are deemed filed and are denied as moot. His suggestion for supplemental briefing on the impact of Cooke is also denied. See Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.