Case Name: George ESCAMILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest CHANDLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-31
Citations: 204 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 05-40359
Parties: George ESCAMILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest CHANDLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
George ESCAMILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest CHANDLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-40359.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 31, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Domingo Sotelo-Lopez, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George Escamilla, federal prisoner #54920-146, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of the introduction of narcotics into Three Rivers Federal Correctional Institution (FCI). He argues that the district court erred in determining that the evidence was sufficient to support the decision of the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO).
Escamilla has not shown that the district court erred in determining that there was "some evidence" in the record to support the DHO's disciplinary decision as the DHO's decision was based on the charging officer's statement, the contents of 33 taped telephone conversations, the SIS report of Lieutenant Robert Swain, and the statements of confidential infor mants. See Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir.1994).
For the first time on appeal, Escamilla argues that his due process rights were violated because he did not appear before the Unit Disciplinary Committee within 72 hours of receiving notice of the charges against him as required by "Program Statement § 5270.07." Escamilla may not raise this claim for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (this court will not consider a new theory of relief raised for the first time on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.