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 court’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 States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. 

He was previously confined in the Federal Correctional Institution Schuylkill (“FCI 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may 

be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 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, Pennsylvania, where he attempted to mail a letter on August 

31, 2015 to an Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) in Indiana. The prison’s 

Special Investigative Services (“SIS”) examined the letter, which stated in part: 

I like it when Guards say,” “IF” you run I will show you how good I can 

shot. “IF” the warden, and you go past 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 Lieutenant Raup wrote an incident report charging Mr. 

Lane with threatening another with bodily harm or any other offense in violation 

of Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) Code 203, codified 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 incident 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 incident report on September 15, 2015. 

 On September 22, 2015, Officer Bittenbender held a hearing on the Code 

204 charge. Ms. Feger, from the prison’s education 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 loss 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 lacked sufficient evidence to find 

him guilty, and (2) Officer Bittenbender’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 denied 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 prisoner’s confinement and seeks the remedy of 

immediate release or a shortened 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-time credits that were lost 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 filed 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 obtain 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 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.” Hale, 829 F.3d at 1170. 

“Any procedure depriving a federal prison inmate of earned statutory good time 

credits must comport with the due process requirements of the Constitution.” Brown, 828 

F.2d at 1494 (alterations omitted). Nevertheless, “[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are 

not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full 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 opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and 

correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence 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 comport with the minimum requirements of 

procedural due process unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported 

by some evidence in the record.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 454 (citation and quotations omitted). 

B. Analysis 

1. Sufficient Evidence 

Mr. Lane first argues that Officer Bittenbender did not find him guilty for 

violating Code 203, which prohibits threatening another with bodily harm. At the 

hearing on the Code 203 charge, Officer Bittenbender continued the hearing and 
- 5 - 

instructed Lieutenant Raup to rewrite the incident report. Lieutenant Raup rewrote the 

report and replaced the Code 203 charge with a Code 204 charge for extortion. Officer 

Bittenbender held a second hearing and found Mr. Lane guilty. Mr. Lane does not 

challenge Officer Bittenbender’s finding of guilt for the Code 204 charge. And Officer 

Bittenbender’s report explaining his finding of guilt contains enough evidence 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. Lane’s first ground for relief. 

2. Witnesses 

Mr. Lane next argues Officer Bittenbender deprived him of due process by not 

allowing him to call Lieutenant Raup and Warden Perdue to testify at the hearing. Before 

the second hearing, Mr. Lane received a form that directed him to list proposed 

witnesses. He listed only Ms. Feger. The record also shows that, before the hearing, Mr. 

Lane had sent handwritten “statements” to the prison’s United Disciplinary Committee 

and Officer Bittenbender requesting that Lieutenant Raup and Warden Perdue testify at 

the hearing. The statements say Lieutenant Raup could testify that (1) “in the event of a 

third . . . Indictment it takes an [sic] conspiracy to testify at trial on co-defendant,” ROA, 

Vol. I at 25, and (2) a particular AUSA “never asked or sent an email [or] ‘Fax’ to 

investigate the offense of extortion,” ROA, Vol. I at 27. The statements also say Warden 

Perdue could testify that he had never been extorted by Mr. Lane. Even assuming the 

proffered testimonies were improperly 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 second ground for relief. 

3. IFP 

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 his request to proceed ifp. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge