From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Machado v. Carey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 18, 2008
263 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-15828.

Submitted January 14, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed January 18, 2008.

Alfred Eugene Machado, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Daniel J. Kossick, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-00278-LKK.

Before: HALL, O'SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


California state prisoner Alfred Eugene Machado appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Machado contends that the California Board of Prison Terms' 2000 decision finding him unsuitable for parole resulted in his being incarcerated beyond the expiration date of his sentence, in violation of his plea agreement. We conclude that the California state court's decision denying this claim was not objectively unreasonable. See Rimes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852-53 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971).

Machado was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e); see also Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Machado v. Carey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 18, 2008
263 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Machado v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:Alfred Eugene MACHADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom CAREY; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 18, 2008

Citations

263 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2008)