UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ MARK ALAN LANE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. CLAUDE MAYE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 16-3287 (D.C. No. 5:16- CV-03105-JWL) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , MATHESON, and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Mark Alan Lane appeals the district c ourt’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“ ifp ”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND Mr. Lane is a prisoner at the United Stat es Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. He was previously confined in the Fede ral Correctional Institution Schuylkill (“FCI

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This orde r and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, re s judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 8, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - Schuylkill”) in Minersville, Pe nnsylvania, where he attempte d to mail a letter on August 31, 2015 to an Assistant Un ited States Attorney (“AUSA”) in Indiana. The prison’s Special Investigative Services (“SIS”) ex amined the letter, which stated in part: I like it when Guards say,” “IF” you run I will show yo u how good I can shot. “IF” the warden, and you go pa st January 25, 2016. I can’t write, what I’m going to do!!! Fax SIS now, you scum bag. . . . Somebody will pay for your sins, That a given. . . . Don’t call, Unless you have a Million dollars. I don’t work for free!!! You tried to play me, and “IF” they take you into trial, it will cost you 2 Million. ROA, Vol. I at 10. The same day, SIS Lieu tenant Raup wrote an inci dent report charging Mr. Lane with threatening another with bodily harm or any other offense in violation of Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) Code 203, co dified at 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 tbl.1. Mr. Lane received a copy of the incident report later that afternoon. On September 14, 2015, Disciplinary Hearing Officer Bittenbender held a hearing on the Code 203 charge. Officer Bittenbender continued the hearing and asked Lieutenant Raup to rewrite the inci dent report. Lieutenant Raup rewrote the report the next day and replaced the Code 203 charge with a Code 204 charge for extortion. Mr. Lane received the new in cident report on Sept ember 15, 2015. On September 22, 2015, Officer Bitte nbender held a hear ing on the Code 204 charge. Ms. Feger, from the prison’s ed ucation department, testified on behalf of Mr. Lane and explained the meaning of the word “if.” No other witnesses were called and Mr. Lane did not present any other evidence. Mr. Lane asserts Officer Bittenbender denied his request to call Lieutenant Raup and Warden Perdue.- 3 - Officer Bittenbender found Mr. Lane guilty of violating Code 204 and imposed sanctions that included lo ss of good-time credits. Mr. Lane filed a § 2241 application for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, 1 arguing (1) Officer Bittenbender la cked sufficient evidence to find him guilty, and (2) Officer Bittenbende r’s refusal to allow testimony from Lieutenant Raup and Warden Perdue violated his due process rights. The district court denied relief on both grounds and de nied Mr. Lane’s motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment. 2
II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Background A § 2241 application attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity. Brace v. United States , 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011). In other words, it challenges “the fact or duration of a pris oner’s confinement and seeks the remedy of immediate release or a shortene d period of confinement.” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole
Comm’n , 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted). A federal prisoner may use a § 2241 application to restore good-tim e credits that were lo st as a result of a prison disciplinary hearing lacking due process. Brown v. Smith , 828 F.2d 1493, 1495

1 Because he was confined in Leavenworth when he file d his § 2241 application, he filed it in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

2 “A federal prisoner is not required to ob tain a certificate of appealability to seek review of a district court’s denial of a habeas application under § 2241.” Hale v. Fox , 829 F.3d 1162, 1165 (10th Cir. 2016).- 4 - (10th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). “When revie wing 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.” Hale , 829 F.3d at 1170. “Any procedure depriving a federal prison inmate of earned statutory good time credits must comport with the due pro cess requirements of the Constitution.” Brown , 828 F.2d at 1494 (alterations omitted). Nevert heless, “[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the fu ll panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Under Wolff , the prisoner must receive “(1 ) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an o pportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and pres ent documentary evid ence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (citing Wolff , 418 U.S. at 563-67). The Supreme Court has also added that “revocation of good time does not comp ort with the minimum requirements of procedural due process unless the findings of the prison di sciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record.” Hill , 472 U.S. at 454 (citation and quotations omitted).
B. Analysis Sufficient Evidence 1. Mr. Lane first argues that Officer B ittenbender did not find him guilty for violating Code 203, which prohibits threatening another with bodily harm. At the hearing on the Code 203 ch arge, Officer Bittenbender continued th e hearing and- 5 - instructed Lieutenant Raup to rewrite the incident report. Lieutenant Raup rewrote the report and replaced the Code 2 03 charge with a Code 204 ch arge for extortion. Officer Bittenbender held a second hearing and foun d Mr. Lane guilty. Mr. Lane does not challenge Officer Bittenbender’s finding of guilt for the Co de 204 charge. And Officer Bittenbender’s report expl aining his finding of guilt contai ns enough evid ence to comport with minimum due process requirements. See Hill , 472 U.S. at 454 (stating revocation of good-time credits must be “supported by some evidence in the record”). The district court did not err in rejecting Mr. La ne’s first ground for relief. Witnesses 2. Mr. Lane next argues Officer Bittenbend er deprived him of due process by not allowing him to call Lieutenant Raup and Warden Perdue to te stify at the hearing. Before the second hearing, Mr. Lane received a fo rm that directed him to list proposed witnesses. He listed only Ms. Feger. The record also show s that, before the hearing, Mr. Lane had sent handwritten “statements” to the prison’s United Disciplinary Committee and Officer Bittenbender requesting that Lieutena nt Raup and Warden Perdue testify at the hearing. The statements sa y Lieutenant Raup could testif y that (1) “in the event of a third . . . Indictment it takes an [sic] conspira cy to testify at trial on co-defendant,” ROA, Vol. I at 25, and (2) a particular AUSA “nev er asked or sent an email [or] ‘Fax’ to investigate the offense of extor tion,” ROA, Vol. I at 27. Th e statements al so say Warden Perdue could testify that he had never been extorted by Mr. Lane. Even assuming the proffered testimonies were impr operly denied, the denial would be harmless because neither testimony would have been relevant to Mr. Lane’s Code 204 charge that was- 6 - based on the 2015 letter extorting the AUSA. See Grossman v. Bruce , 447 F.3d 801, 805 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[E]rrors made by prison officials in denying witness testimony at official hearings are subject to harmless error review.”). The district court did not err in denying Mr. Lane’s seco nd ground for relief.
IFP 3. Mr. Lane requests to proceed ifp . We deny the request because he fails to show “a financial inability to pay the required fees.” McIntosh , 115 F.3d at 812.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Lane’s § 2241 application and deny hi s request to proceed ifp

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge