NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1065

___________ CA RLO S ORTI Z,

A ppel l ant v. R O N N I E H O L T , W ar den, U SP C anaa n; S. I . S I N V E ST I G A T I O N U N I T , U SP C anaa n

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 09- cv- 01702) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

___________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y22, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t16, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM C ar l os O rt i z fi l ed a pe t i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 t o pr ot es tthe i m pos i t i on of s anct i ons agai ns thi m , i ncl udi ng the l os s of good- t i m e cr edi t s , aft era pr i s on2

in v e stig a tio n a n d d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g a t U S P –C a n a a n . H e c laim e d th a t p riso n o f f icia ls had vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s of l aw , as w el l as a fe der al r egul at i on. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rtd e n ie d O rt iz ’s p e titio n , a n d O rt iz a p p e a ls . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew i s pl enary . See R i os v. W i l ey , 201 F. 3d 257, 262 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . U pon r evi ew , w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on. D ue p rocess prot ect i on s att ach in pri son d i sci pli naryproceed i ng s i n w hich the loss o f g o o d -t im e c re d its is a t s ta k e . S e e W o lf f v . M c D o n n e ll, 4 1 8 U .S . 5 3 9 , 5 6 4 -6 5 (1 9 7 4 ). I n W ol ff, the Supr eme C ourthel d thatan i nm at e mustr ece i ve “( 1) advanc e w r i tt en not i ce o f th e d isc ip lin a ryc h a rg e s; (2 ) a n o p p o rtu n ity , w h e n c o n sis ten t w ith in stitu tio n a l sa f e ty and corr ect i onal goal s , t o cal l w i tnes s es and pr es entdocument aryevi dence i n hi s defe ns e; and ( 3) a w r i tt en s t at ementbythe fa ct fi nderof the evi dence r el i ed on and the r eas ons for th e d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n .” S u p e ri n te n d e n t v . H ill, 4 7 2 U .S . 4 4 5 , 4 5 4 (1 9 8 5 ). I n H i l l , the Supr eme C ourtfurtherexpl ai ned thatt o m eetthe mi ni m um r equi r ement s of due pr oces s , the fi ndi ngs of the pr i s on di s ci pl i naryboar d m us tal s o be s upport ed bys om e evi dence i n the r ecor d. See i d. T he “s om e evi dence ” s t andar d “does notr equi r e exa m i nat i on of the ent i r e r ecor d, i ndepende ntas s es s m entof the cr edi bi l i tyof w i tnes s es , orw ei ghi ng of the evi dence . ” I d. at455. “[T] he r el evantques t i on i s w hether ther e i s anyevi dence i n the r ecor d thatcoul d s upportthe conc l us i on r eac hed bythe di s ci pl i naryboar d. ” I d. at455- 56.O rt i z s t at es thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourts houl d have r evi ew ed the evi dence i n ca m era to 1 d e te rm in e w h e th e r i t s u p p o rt e d th e p ri s o n d is c ip lin a ry c o m m itte e ’s c o n c lu s io n s . H o w ev er, as w e e x p lai n ed ab o v e, th e D istri ct C o u rtis no t r eq u ir ed to ex am ine th e e n ti re 3 O rt i z r ece i ved the pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons s etforth i n W ol ff. H e r ece i ved not i ce of the cha r ges ; an opportuni tyt o pr es entevi dence and ca l l w i tnes s es ; and he r ece i ved the w r i tt en s t at ementthati s i n the r ecor d and des cr i bes the evi dence on w hi ch the fa ct fi nder re lie d , a s w e ll a s th e re a s o n s f o r t h e d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n . O rt iz also c lai m ed that a f ed era l r eg u lat ion an d h is r igh t t o d u e p roc ess w ere vi ol at ed bec aus e hi s hear i ng w as nothel d w i thi n thr ee da y s fr om the t i m e pr i s on per s onnel become aw ar e of a n i nci dentw arr ant i ng a hea r i ng. Feder al r egul at i ons pr ovi de th a t an in iti a l h e a rin g b e f o re a U n it D isc ip lin a ryC o m m itt e e is o rd in a rilyh e ld w ith in “thr ee w ork day s fr om the t i m e s t aff beca m e aw ar e of the i nm at e’ s i nvol vementi n the i n c i d e n t . ” 2 8 C. F . R. § 5 4 1 . 1 5 ( b ) . T h e t i me l i mi tma yb e e x t e n d e d f o rg o o d c a u s e s h o wn an d d o cu m en ted in the re co rd. S ee id. at§ 5 4 1 . 1 5 (k). I n this case , as th e D istri ct C o u rt expl ai ned, the document ed r eas on fora del ayw as the nee d fora r evi s i on t o the i nci dent re p o rt. T h e re g u latio n w a s n o t v io late d . F u rth e rm o re , O rtiz c a n n o t sh o w th a t h is rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss w a s v io late d b yth e d e lay w h e re W o lf f d id n o t re q u ire th a t a h e a rin g b e h e ld w i thi n thr ee da y s ( ora s peci fi c t i m e fr ame) and w her e anydel ayi n hol di ng hi s hear i ng d id n o t p re

ju d ic e h im . S e e W ils o n v . A s h c ro f t, 3 5 0 F .3 d 3 7 7 , 3 8 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e la s t is s u e is w h e th e r s o m e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt e d th e im p o s itio n o f s a n c tio n s . U p o n rev iew ing the re co rd, w e c o n clud e tha t th e “ so m e e v iden ce ” stan d ard is m et. In 1r ecor d, i ndepende nt l yas s es s the cr edi bi l i tyof the w i tnes s es , orw ei gh the evi dence . See

H ill, 4 7 2 U .S . a t 4 5 5 . 4 th e re c o rd is th e h e a ri n g o f f ic e r’ s re p o rt , w h ic h q u o te s th e re le v a n t in c id e n t r e p o rt . A lth o u g h O rt iz m a in ta in s th a t th e e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im w a s “ n o n -e x is te n t a n d m a d e u p ,” A p p e lla n t’ s B ri e f

1 , h e d id n o t d is p u te th e e x is te n c e o f th e in c id e n t r e p o rt , s e e e .g ., P e tit io n 4 . H is o b

jec tio n th a t th e re p o rt w a s b a se d o n h e a rsa yd o e s n o t ch a n g e its v a lid ity as evi dence agai ns thi m . See G r i ffi n v. Spr att , 969 F. 2d 16, 22 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( not i ng that a d e c is io n m a k e r m a yre ly o n h e a rs a yin a p ri s o n d is c ip lin a ry p ro c e e d in g ). I n the i nci dentr eport , an i nves t i gat i ng offi cerr el i ed on the s t at ement s of other i nm at es and tr ans act i ons i n O rt i z’ s comm i s s aryacc ountt o det erm i ne thatO rt i z pos s es s ed and s ol d ful l and part i al gr ams of her oi n i n pr i s on. T he i nci dentr eportal s o ci t ed an i nves t i gat i on fol l ow i ng the arr es tof a pr i s on vi s i t orfound t o be ca rry i ng her oi n; the i nves t i gat i on, bas ed on i nt ervi ew s , i nm at e s t at ement s , and t el ephone r ecor di ngs , r evea l ed thatthe vi s i t orw as m eet i ng w i th a per s on thatO rt i z w as us i ng as a drug “mul e” or “ca rr i er . ” I n addi t i on, athi s hear i ng O rt i z conc eded thathe had a ddr es s ed an e nvel ope thatw as found among the r el eas e pape rw ork of anotheri nm at e. T he enve l ope cont ai ned a typ e d lette r (o f

w h ich O rtiz d isa v o w e d o w n e rsh ip ) th a t re q u e ste d 3 0 g ra m s o f h e ro in and w as addr es s ed t o s om eone O rt i z des cr i bed as a fr i end. T he per s on carry i ng the l ett er w h e n it w a s f

o u n d s ta te d th a t h e h a d a g re e d to s m u g g le o u t th e le tte r f o r a n o th e r i n m a te . Fur therm or e, O rt i z di d notdenythathe r ece i ved funds fr om otheri nm at es ( al though he5

s ta te d th a t h e re c e iv e d m o n e yb e c a u s e h e ra n a s to re o f s o rt s , n o t b e c a u s e h e s o ld d ru g s ). I n s hort , des pi t e O rt i z’ s cl ai m t o the contr ary , “s om e evi dence ” s upport s the pr i s on d is c ip lin a ry c o m m itte e ’s f in d in g . F o r th e se re a so n s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyru led th a t O rtiz d id nots how thathi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s of l aw orhi s r i ght s underthe r el evantr egul at i on w e re v io la te d . W e w ill a f f irm th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.