NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COREY BURGESS, No. 15-16512
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00544-AWI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HECTOR ALFONZO RIOS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner Corey Burgess appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging
a prison disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the denial of a section 2241 petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Because Burgess is serving a term of supervised release that derived from
his underlying conviction, we reject appellee’s argument that this appeal is moot.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h); Tablada, 533 F.3d at 802 n.1.
Burgess challenges the disciplinary hearing officer’s finding that he
committed assault and contends that the disciplinary proceedings violated his right
to due process. The record reflects that Burgess’s disciplinary hearing comported
with due process and “some evidence” supports the disciplinary officer’s findings.
See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process
are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements
for prison disciplinary proceedings). We reject as unfounded Burgess’s
contentions that the district court unreasonably delayed in rendering judgment, was
biased against him, and erred by failing to require that Burgess exhaust
administrative remedies.
Appellee’s request for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16512