United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30352
Conference Calendar
MARIO PENA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-40
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mario Pena, federal prisoner # 75006-079, was convicted in a
disciplinary hearing of possessing marijuana. He now appeals the
dismissal with prejudice of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging his loss of 54 days’ good time credits.
Pena first argues that his due process rights were violated
at his disciplinary hearing. Pena received written notice of the
charges against him, he was given the opportunity to call
witnesses and to make a statement on his own behalf, and the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-30352
-2-
disciplinary hearing officer provided the required written
statement. There was no due process violation. See Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974).
Pena next argues that the evidence adduced at his
disciplinary hearing was insufficient. The record reveals
evidence supporting the conclusions reached by the disciplinary
hearing officer. Therefore, the conclusions reached were not
arbitrary and capricious. See Superintendent, Massachusetts
Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985); see
also Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994).
Last, Pena argues that a conflict of interest exists because
the respondent’s counsel and Pena’s prosecutor work in the same
office. Because this issue is raised for the first time on
appeal, we decline to address it. See Blanks v. Murco Drilling
Corp., 766 F.2d 891, 897 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.