Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01476/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01476-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS . F I L B D 

Uruted Stare, Court of Appe,Js 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

HECTOR CAMACHO, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

BUREAU OF PRISON; T.C. MARTIN, Warden, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Tenth Circwt 

FEB 2 a f988 

ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1476 

(D.C. No. 87-189-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court 

denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 2241. In his habeas corpus petition, petitioner 

alleged (1) he was denied his right to due process when the Bureau 

of Prisons refused to consider a BP-11 appeal due to untimeliness, 

Appellate Case: 87-1476 Document: 010110027478 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
and (2) the Institution Disciplinary Committee based its decision 

to revoke good time credits on insufficient evidence. 

The district court determined that there was evidence to 

support the Institution Disciplinary Committee's findings of 

misconduct on the part of the petitioner. See Superintendent, 

Mass. Correctional Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). 

Because the district court found evidence in the record to support 

the findings of misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the 

district court concluded petitioner suffered no prejudice from the 

Bureau of Prisons' refusal to consider his BP-11 appeal. 

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we conclude 

the district court correctly denied § 2241 relief. We further 

conclude the district court's failure to hold an evidentiary 

hearing was not error. 

Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1476 Document: 010110027478 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2