MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Alejandro Bello 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.

Bello contends that his due process rights were violated by the Board’s 2006 decision finding him unsuitable for parole, *234 because the decision was not supported 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. —, 131 S.Ct. 859, 868, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Bello raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, we affirm.

We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certifícate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.