IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40972

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM N. RAND,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RACHEL CHAPA, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CV-238

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William N. Rand, federal prisoner # 38642-177, appeals the denial of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his prison disciplinary conviction for 

possessing a hazardous tool and his resulting loss of 41 days of good-time 

credits. The conviction was based upon, inter alia, an incident report stating,

and photographs showing, that a prison employee discovered an unauthorized 

SD chip (chip) during a search of Rand’s personal locker.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 24, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40972 Document: 00515248192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/24/2019
No. 18-40972

2

When his pro se brief is construed liberally, Rand argues only that the 

district court erred by denying his claims that (1) the disciplinary hearing 

officer (DHO), Aundra Thomas, was impartial, (2) the hearing evidence failed 

to establish that the chip constituted a hazardous tool under 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, 

(3) the hearing evidence failed to establish that he possessed the chip, and (4) 

he was denied due process because he was not afforded an opportunity to 

investigate and present exculpatory evidence. Accordingly, he has abandoned 

all the other claims that he raised in the district court. See Yohey v. Collins, 

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its 

conclusions of law de novo. See Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 

897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). Rand does not meaningfully address the district 

court’s conclusion that, because Thomas was not involved in the incident at 

issue, she was not biased. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(b); Adams v. Gunnell, 729 F.2d 

362, 370 (5th Cir. 1984); Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

In reviewing whether the record evidence supports Rand’s disciplinary 

conviction, we consider only whether “there was some evidence from which the 

conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced.” Superintendent, 

Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). We review this question of law de novo. See Teague v. 

Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 2007). “The ‘some evidence’ standard 

is extremely deferential—we have found a single report or testifying witness 

sufficient to support an adverse disciplinary decision.” Morgan v. Dretke, 433 

F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 2005). In light of both Thomas’s declaration explaining 

the dangerousness of the chip and Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 

5270.09, which holds inmates responsible for keeping their areas free of 

 Case: 18-40972 Document: 00515248192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/24/2019
No. 18-40972

3

contraband, the district court did not err by concluding that the incident report 

and photographs constitute some evidence supporting Rand’s conviction for 

constructively possessing a hazardous tool. See Teague, 482 F.3d at 773.

Even if Rand is correct that he was improperly denied the opportunity to 

call witnesses and present evidence in his defense, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 

U.S. 539, 566 (1974), he must establish that he was prejudiced by the 

constitutional violation to obtain § 2241 relief. See Simpson v. Ortiz, 995 F.2d 

606, 609 (5th Cir. 1993). Rand does not meaningfully respond to the district 

court’s holding, based upon Thomas’s declaration, that he failed to show 

prejudice because the hearing outcome would not have changed had Thomas

considered the evidence in question. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Rand’s

conclusory assertion that he was prejudiced simply because he lost good-time 

credits is insufficient to warrant § 2241 relief. See Ross v. Estelle, 694 F.2d 

1008, 1012 (5th Cir. 1983).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40972 Document: 00515248192 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/24/2019