
    Anthony PATTERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. Phillip GUTIERREZ, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-55998
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed October 31, 2016
    Anthony Patterson, Pro Se
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diana Kwok, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and GOULD, 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 Anthony Patterson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of good conduct time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Patterson contends that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer relied on insufficient evidence to find he assaulted his cellmate. Contrary to Patterson’s contention, the sanctions imposed are supported by “some evidence.” See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Moreover, the record shows that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural due process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The district court received and reviewed all materials in the record even though the materials are under seal. The district court, therefore, properly denied Patterson’s habeas petition.

Patterson’s request for counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     