Filed: Apr. 22, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60727 Conference Calendar HARRY SCHREIBER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:01-CV-82-RG - - - - - - - - - - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harry
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60727 Conference Calendar HARRY SCHREIBER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:01-CV-82-RG - - - - - - - - - - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harry ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60727
Conference Calendar
HARRY SCHREIBER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:01-CV-82-RG
- - - - - - - - - -
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harry Schreiber, federal prisoner #40454-004, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in
which he challenged (1) the disciplinary hearing finding that he
was guilty of unauthorized communications and giving and
receiving of money; and (2) the resulting sanction that included
the loss of 21 days of good-time credit. When his pro se briefs
are construed liberally, Schreiber contends only that he was
deprived of due process because the evidence was insufficient to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60727
-2-
support his conviction on the disciplinary charge. The record
indicates that the disciplinary hearing officer’s decision was
supported by some evidence. See Superintendent, Mass.
Correctional Inst. v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985); Reeves v.
Pettcox,
19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.