MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner William Blaine Mayfield 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.

Mayfield contends that the Governor’s 2002 decision to deny him parole 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (acknowledging Cooke and holding that due process does not require Governor to hold second suitability hearing before reversing parole grant); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Cooke). Because Mayfield raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.