
    Brian L. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard IVES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    Nos. 15-56885, 16-55131
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Brian L. Brown, Pro Se
    Diana L. Pauli, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Garrett Joseph Coyle, USLA— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App: P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these appeals, Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions challenging two prison disciplinary hearings. 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 in both cases.

In Appeal No. 15-56885, Brown challenges the findings of the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) that he committed (1) assault and threatening bodily harm, and (2) assault. In Appeal No. 16-55131, Brown again challenges the first finding. The record reflects that both of Brown’s disciplinary hearings comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the DHO’s findings. See 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); 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). We reject Brown’s challenges to the district court’s handling of his petitions.

Brown’s motions to file the untimely and oversized reply brief are granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 39 in Appeal No. 15-56885, and at Docket Entry No. 38 in Appeal No. 16-55131.

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