UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________Q. ILI-YAAS FARRAKHANMUHAMMAD, a/k/a Christopher Mitchell, a/k/a Q lli-Yaas Haakeem Farrakhan-Muhammad, a/k/a C. Eli-Jah Hakeem Muhammad, a/k/a Elijah HakeemMuhammad, a/k/a Caliph lli-Yas AzHakeem Muhammad, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JOHN OLIVER, ADX-Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 16-1445 (D.C. No. 1:15- CV-02222-PAB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before McHUGH and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collatera l estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** The Honorable Neil Gorsuch was assigned to this matter orig inally but did not participate in this Order & Judgment. The practice of this Court permits the remaining two panel judges, if in agreement, to act as a quorum in resolving the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); see also United States v. Wiles , 106 F.3d 1516, 1516 n.* (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that this court allows remaining panel judges to act as a quorum to resolve an appeal). The remaining panel members have acte d as a quorum with respect to this order and judgment. After examining the briefs and appellate record, the remaining panel members have determined that oral argument would no t materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10t h Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitte d without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 3, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Petitioner Q. Ili-Yaas Farrakhan-Muhamm ad, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S. C. § 2241, alleging violations of his constitutional due pr ocess rights in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. Duri ng those proceedings, the Di sciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of assaulting anot her inmate by throwing an unknown clear liquid at that inmate. The DHO sancti oned Petitioner with 27 days’ loss of good conduct time, 30 days’ discip linary segregation, and 60 da ys’ loss of commissary and telephone privileges. Petitioner alleges that prison officials violated his due process rights because (1) the notice of the disciplin ary charge was inadequate and untimely; (2) the Unit Discipline Co mmittee (UDC) hearing was untimely; (3) his staff representation was ineffective; (4) the DHO was biased; and (5) the evidence against him was insufficient. He requested that the dist rict court expunge his disciplinary conviction and restore his good time credits. Petitioner also seeks to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). Exercising ju risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 12 91, we affirm the district court’s order denying Petitione r’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 app lication and further deny Petitioner’s IFP motion. “When reviewing the denial of a habeas petition under § 2241, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and accept its factual findings unless clearly
erroneous.” al-Marri v. Davis , 714 F.3d 1183, 1186 (10th Cir. 2013). Before a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss of good time cred its, an inmate must receive “(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present3 documentary evidence in his de fense; and (3) a written statem ent by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reason s for the disciplinary action.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 563–567 (1974)). Additio nally, to comport with due pr ocess, some evidence must support the decision and the deci sionmaker must be impartial. Gwinn v. Awmiller , 354 F.3d 1211, 1219 (10th Cir. 2004). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court correctly held that Petitioner received all the process to which he was entitled. The district court ably explained the basis for rejecting each of Pe titioner’s arguments, and we need not go into great detail here. In short, prison regulati ons are meant to guide correctional officials, not to confer rights on inmates. Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 481–82 (1995). The minor deviations from Bureau of Pris on regulations rega rding when Petitioner received the incident report and when the UDC hearing occurred did not violate the Constitution. See Brennan v. United States , 646 F. App’x 662, 667 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (rejecting the petitioner’s argum ent that the BOP’s failure to provide an inmate with an incident report within 24 hours of the incident violated due process), cert. denied sub nom. Br annan v. United States (2017); Brown v. Rios , 196 F. App’x 681, 683 ( 10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (noting that the Due Process Clause does not require a UDC hearing, a nd thus the petitioner r eceived more process than the Due Process Clau se guaranteed when he re ceived the “constitutionally unnecessary UDC hearing,” even if that hearing occurred later than regulations required). Next, inmates do not have “a right to either re tained or appointed counsel4 in disciplinary hearings,” Baxter v. Palmigiano , 425 U.S. 308, 31 5 (1976) (quoting Wolff , 418 U.S. at 570), and we see nothing to support Petitioner’s argument that his assistance was ineffec tive. As to Petitioner’s fourth argument, Petitioner certainly has a due process right to an impartial decisionmaker, but “because honesty and integrity are presumed on the part of a tribunal, there must be some substantial countervailing reason to conclude that a decisi onmaker is actually bi ased with respect to factual issues being adjudicated.” Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents , 159 F.3d 504, 518 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks om itted). Petitioner claims the record shows the DHO’s bias but does not otherwise point to any specifics supporting his argument. We reviewed the record and can find no such evidence. An d finally, we agree with the district court that there is some evidence su pporting the DHO’s finding that Petitioner attempted to assault another prisoner. The DHO relied on a staff report that included witness interviews as well as a video of the incident. See Hill , 472 U.S. at 455–56 (“[T]he relevant question is whether there is a ny evidence in the reco rd that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.”); Ruelas v. Zuercher , 240 F. App’x 796, 797 (10th Cir. 2007) (unp ublished) (explaining that the incident “report alone constitutes ‘some evidence’ of Petitioner’s guilt”). Because Petitioner has received all the process he was due, we AFFIRM for substantially the reasons set forth in the distri ct court’s order denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus. In addition, we DENY Petitioner’s request to proceed on appeal in5 forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge