* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 The Petition was filed on a form for 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 petitions. However, since Petitioner is challenging the execution of hi s sentence and not the conviction and sentence itself, his Petition is con strued as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See McIntosh v. United States (continued...) 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 10 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN HAMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. RON WARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 02-6326 (D.C. No. 02-CV-543-F) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , Chief Circuit Judge, McKAY and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 state prisoner appeal. 1 Mr. Hammons, a1 (...continued)

Parole Comm’n , 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997). -2- prisoner incarcerated at the Great Plains Correctio nal Facility in Oklahoma, was charged with disciplinary misconduct for obtaining money from his inmate mandatory savings account under false pretenses. M r. Hammons was found guilty of the offense and disciplined. After exhausting h is administrative remedies, Mr. Hammons filed a petition in the district court alle ging that there was no evidence to support the disciplinary conviction. The distri ct court denied the petition, and Mr. Hammons applied to this court for a certificate of appealability. In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a cons titutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) th e petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues p resented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v . McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citations and internal quotations omitt ed). We will not disturb disciplinary actions by prison administrators so long as there is “some evidence” to support the action. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Such a review does notrequire “examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or-3-

weighing of the evidence.” Id. We must merely determine “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the concl usion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-56. Oklahoma law provides that funds from an inmate’s m andatory savings “account may be used by the inmate for fees or cost s in filing a civil or criminal action . . . .” Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 549(A)(5) ( 2003). The record indicates that Mr. Hammons requested that a check for $400.00 be i ssued from his account to pay fees charged by the Court Clerk for the Distric t Court of Oklahoma County for photocopying various documents in connection wi th Mr. Hammons’ state court criminal proceeding. Such costs are not asso ciated with the filing of a civil or criminal action. Accordingly, we find that the disciplinary action was supported by “some evidence.” We have carefully reviewed Mr. Hammons’ brief, the district court’s disposition, the magistrate judge’s report and reco mmendation, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal , or Mr. Hammons’ brief raises an issue which meets our standards for the grant of a certificate of appealability. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons as se t forth by the district court in its Order of October 4, 2002, we cannot say “that r easonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petit ion should have been resolved in a different manner.” Id.-4-

We DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge