Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06252/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06252-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. F. Beeler
Appellee
Charles W. Tyler
Appellant

Document Text:

,. 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 51992 

ROBERT L. li~CKER 

Clerk 

CHARLES W. TYLER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

A. F. BEELER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-6252 

) (W.O. Okla. No. CIV-91-41-A) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMEN'l'* 

Before LOGAR, Circuit Judge, BARRE'l"l', Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge.t 

Appellant Tyler appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus 

petition. Because we hold that the district court did not err in 

dismissing, we affirm. 

The appellant is a federal prisoner who brought this habeas 

proceeding to remedy alleged errors in a prison disciplinary 

hearing. The appellant was disciplined for smuggling narcotics 

* T~is order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

t 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 . 9 . Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-6252 Document: 010110221681 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 1 
into the prison where he was serving his sentence. He argues the 

following errors dictate the granting of habeas relief: 

(1) That the disciplinary hearing officer relied on 

confidential informants' statements without making a determination 

that the informants were reliable in accordance with 28 C.F.R. 

S 541.17(f) and Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493, 1495 (10th Cir. 

1987). 

(2) That the appellant's right to due process was violated 

when prison authorities failed to hold a rehearing he had been 

granted within thirty days and failed to conform with other time 

limits. 

(3) That the appellant's right to due process was violated 

when prison authorities changed in various ways the incident 

report recounting the infraction. 

After examining the record, including the reports relating to 

the confidential informants viewed by the district court in 

camera, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed 

the appellant's habeas petition for substantially the reasons 

stated in the district court's Memorandum Opinion of July 1, 1991. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-6252 Document: 010110221681 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 2