
    Francis RAJ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael L. BENOV, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-17469.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2013.
    Francis Raj, Taft, CA, pro se.
    Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, Stockton, CA, Robert A. Ford, Esquire, Lorena Matei, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mark J. McKeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Dale Patrick, Esquire, Taft, CA, for Responden1>-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francis Raj appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary action that resulted in the loss of good time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Raj was found to have violated the Bureau of Prisons’ Prohibited Acts Code 104, based on his possession of a razor blade. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.13, Table 3, Code 104 (2010) (prohibiting “[pjossession, manufacture, or introduction of a gun, firearm, weapon, sharpened instrument, knife, dangerous chemical, explosive or any ammunition”). Raj contends that this finding was not supported because a razor blade is not a “weapon” or “sharpened instrument.” This contention is unavailing because a razor blade removed from a disposable razor is inherently dangerous. Accordingly, Raj’s due process rights were not violated because some evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

In his reply brief, Raj also contends that the disciplinary hearing officer at Taft Correctional Institution lacked authority to discipline him. Because this contention was not raised in Raj’s petition before the district court, we decline to consider it on appeal. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.1994) (“Habeas claims that are not raised before the district court in the petition are not cognizable on appeal.”).

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