
    John E. BARRINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael BABCOCK, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute; Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 13-15559.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2014.
    John E. Barrington, Sandstone, MN, pro se.
    Justin Lee, Assistant U.S., USSAC-Of-fice of the U.S Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner John E. Barrington 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 de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2241 habeas petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Barrington contends that his disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the loss of 27 days of good conduct time, violated his due process rights because an investigating officer participated in his hearing and thereby deprived Barrington of an impartial decisionmaker. Even if this claim has been properly exhausted, it is without merit. The record reflects that Barrington’s disciplinary hearing comported with due process, and that “some evidence” supports the disciplinary officer’s findings. See 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); 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).

■ Barrington’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, filed January 10, 2014, is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief received on December 27, 2013.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     