
    Jeffrey T. PINA, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rebecca TAMEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-10710
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 30, 2012.
    Jeffrey T. Pina, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    
      Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey T. Pina, federal prisoner #24261-038, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his prison disciplinary conviction that resulted in his forfeiting good time credits. We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings and review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001).

Pina argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he aided and abetted another prisoner in possessing a cell phone. “[T]he requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). We are not required to examine the entire record, to assess independently the credibility of witnesses, or to weigh the evidence. Id. at 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768. “[PJrison disciplinary proceedings will be overturned only where there is no evidence whatsoever to support the decision of the prison officials.” Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir.1994).

It cannot be said in Pina’s case that “there is no evidence whatsoever to support the decision of the prison officials” that would require overturning the disciplinary proceeding. See id. In particular, the cell phone was found in Pina’s work area, the phone’s incoming and outgoing call log listed a telephone number found only on Pina’s approved call list, and he stated that he thought another prisoner would take responsibility for having the cell phone.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     