Case Name: Pedro BALDOVINOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 680 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 15-16537
Parties: Pedro BALDOVINOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
Pedro BALDOVINOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-16537
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 14, 2017
Pedro Baldovinos, Pro Se
Audrey Benison Hemesath, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Pedro Baldovinos appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Baldovinos challenges the finding of the disciplinary hearing officer ("DHO") that he committed riot-like conduct and contends that the disciplinary proceedings violated his right to due process. The record reflects that Baldovinos's disciplinary hearing comported with due process and "some evidence" supports the DHO's findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if "some evidence" supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). We reject Baldovinos's claim that the DHO, a Bureau of Prisons employee, lacked authority to impose disciplinary sanctions against him for conduct that occurred at a contract facility. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.10(a) (2007). Finally, we reject Bal-dovinos's double jeopardy claims. See United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 104-05 (9th Cir. 1995) ("the prohibition against double jeopardy does not bar criminal prosecution for conduct that has been the subject of prison disciplinary sanctions," and loss of good conduct time does not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes).
We decline to consider Baldovinos's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that he is actually innocent of his 2010 criminal convictions in the Western District of Texas. See Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 959 (9th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.