[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-11708

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-00377-RBD-PRL

ALIMAMY BARRIE, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN,

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 19, 2021)

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-11708 Date Filed: 03/19/2021 Page: 1 of 3
2

Alimamy Barrie, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the result 

of a prison disciplinary hearing for possession of amphetamines that resulted in 

him losing good conduct time. Barrie asserts the district court erred in finding that

some evidence supported the conclusion that Barrie was in possession of 

amphetamines because the Narcotics Identification Kit (NIK) tests were unreliable. 

After review,1 we affirm the district court. 

The Supreme Court has held that the following minimum due-process 

procedures are required in a prisoner’s disciplinary proceeding: (1) at least 

24 hours’ notice of the charges so that the prisoner can prepare for the hearing; 

(2) a written statement by the factfinder detailing what evidence was relied upon 

and why disciplinary action was taken; and (3) the qualified right to call witnesses 

and present documentary evidence, if not “unduly hazardous to institutional safety 

or correctional goals.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974). In 

determining whether a prisoner has received due process, in the context of 

revocation of GCT, a court is not required to examine the entire record, weigh the 

evidence, or independently assess the credibility of witnesses. Superintendent, 

1

 We review de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief under § 2241 and its fact 

findings for clear error. Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277, 1291 (11th Cir. 2011). Pro se 

pleadings are liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 

1998). 

USCA11 Case: 20-11708 Date Filed: 03/19/2021 Page: 2 of 3
3

Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985); Yarbrough v. 

Decatur Hous. Auth., 941 F.3d 1022, 1028 (11th Cir. 2019). The relevant question 

is only whether the hearing officer’s findings are supported “by some evidence in 

the record.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. This does not require a robust substantive 

evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence behind the administrative decision 

and is not a guarantee against ill-advised or incorrect decisions. Yarbrough, 

941 F.3d at 1027. The decision need only have some basis in fact. Id. at 1028.

Barrie’s disciplinary proceeding satisfied the due process requirements 

outlined in Wolff and the district court did not err in finding that some evidence 

supported the discipline hearing officer’s (DHO) findings. Regarding due process, 

Barrie was notified of the DHO hearing 23 days beforehand, the report explained 

the evidence it relied upon, and Barrie could have requested a staff representative 

or witnesses. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-66. Regarding the evidence, the district 

court did not err in concluding the positive NIK test results were sufficient to 

satisfy the “some evidence” standard because it did not need to address the 

sufficiency or credibility of the evidence. Yarbrough, 941 F.3d at 1027-28. 

Hence, although Barrie argues the NIK tests were unreliable and cannot be relied 

upon, the district court was not required to assess those tests. The district court did 

not err in finding the positive test results satisfied the “some evidence” standard. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11708 Date Filed: 03/19/2021 Page: 3 of 3