Case Name: James BROOMFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-12
Citations: 154 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 04-35188
Parties: James BROOMFIELD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
James BROOMFIELD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-35188.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 12, 2005.
James Broomfield, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
Craig J. Casey, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for RespondentAppellee.
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner James Broomfield appeals pro se the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Reviewing de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm. For the reasons stated by the district court, petitioner has not shown that due process was violated in depriving him of good time credits.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.