IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10607

Summary Calendar

LISA A. BIRON,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

JODY UPTON, Warden, Federal Medical Center Carswell,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-772

USDC No. 4:14-CV-823

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lisa Biron, federal prisoner # 12775-049, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition 

in the District of Connecticut to challenge three disciplinary convictions. Biron 

incurred a fourth disciplinary conviction after her transfer to a Bureau of 

Prisons (BOP) facility at FMC Carswell, where she is presently incarcerated, 

and she filed another § 2241 petition to challenge that disciplinary conviction, 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10607 Document: 00513771384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
No. 15-10607

2

which like the others, resulted in punishments that included the loss of good 

conduct time. The Connecticut federal district court transferred Biron’s first 

§ 2241 petition to the Northern District of Texas.

The Government answered the petitions, arguing that Biron’s challenges 

to her disciplinary convictions lacked merit and that Biron’s challenges to three 

of her disciplinary convictions should be dismissed because she had failed to 

exhaust her administrative remedies. Biron filed a reply. After consolidating 

the petitions, the district court addressed the merits of Biron’s challenge to the 

disciplinary conviction associated with Incident Report 2511967 and denied 

habeas relief. The district court dismissed Biron’s claims as to the disciplinary 

convictions associated with Incident Reports 2543232, 2545925, and 2602170 

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Biron timely appealed.

As to the disciplinary conviction associated with Incident Report 

2511967, Biron argues that she was denied notice and the opportunity to 

defend herself when the Regional Director changed her disciplinary conviction 

from a Code 196 violation to a Code 296 violation. She also contends that she 

violated no prison rule and that there was no evidence to support the 

disciplinary conviction.

The record shows that the same facts alleged to support the original Code 

196 charge provided the basis for Biron’s conviction of a Code 296 violation. 

Biron’s rights to notice and to the opportunity to defend herself therefore were 

not abridged. See Downs v. Wages, 62 F.3d 395, 1995 WL 450196, *1-2 (5th 

Cir. July 3, 1995) (unpublished). Further, a Code 296 violation can be 

committed in various ways, including “writing letters in code.” 28 C.F.R. 

§ 541.3(a). The record establishes that Biron wrote a letter, addressed to her

father, which contained a message intended for her minor daughter, whom 

Biron referred to as “my Cousin Erin.” Based on the foregoing, there was some 

 Case: 15-10607 Document: 00513771384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
No. 15-10607

3

evidence to support the disciplinary conviction. See Broussard v. Johnson, 253 

F.3d 874, 876-77 (5th Cir. 2001).

Biron contends that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing 

her challenges to the disciplinary convictions associated with Incident Reports 

2543232, 2545925, and 2602170 for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. She argues that (1) because the issue of a “no contact” order was 

common to all of her administrative appeals, and that issue was resolved in 

her initial administrative appeal, she should be deemed to have exhausted the 

issue for purposes of subsequent administrative appeals, (2) the BOP made 

administrative remedies unavailable in various ways, and (3) her failure to 

exhaust should be excused because the pursuit of administrative remedies was 

futile. After a thorough review of the record in light of Biron’s arguments, we 

conclude that Biron has failed to establish that the district court abused its 

discretion in dismissing her claims for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. See Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, as to 

Biron’s challenge to the disciplinary conviction associated with Incident Report 

2602170, we affirm for the additional reason that Biron was “required to 

exhaust [her] administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal 

court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Id.

Finally, Biron asserts that it was plain error for the Connecticut federal 

district court to allow the BOP to transfer her to a facility in Texas after she 

had filed a § 2241 petition in the District of Connecticut, and she requests that 

we order the BOP to transfer her back to its Northeast Region. We have held 

that “[t]he hallmark of a statute that has not created a liberty interest is 

discretion,” and “[w]here the statute grants the prison administration 

discretion, the government has conferred no right on the inmate.” Richardson 

v. Joslin, 501 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2007). In view of the BOP’s broad

 Case: 15-10607 Document: 00513771384 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
No. 15-10607

4

discretion in designating the place of a prisoner’s incarceration, see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3621(b), there was no error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Richardson, 501 F.3d at 419.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10607 Document: 00513771384 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/23/2016