Jorge Briones v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 17-30409 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-30409 Document: 00514379848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-30409 Summary Calendar FILED March 9, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JORGE BRIONES, Petitioner - Appellant v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:16-CV-1172 Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Briones, federal prisoner # 60871-054 and proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged the punishment imposed by a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO), following his disciplinary conviction, for possession, manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous tool, namely a cell-phone charger, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.3. His punishment included 60 days of disciplinary segregation, a disallowance of Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 17-30409 Document: 00514379848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 No. 17-30409 41 days of good-conduct time, forfeiture of 270 days of non-vested good conduct time, a $180 fine, and a one-year loss of visitation and telephone privileges. He claims his punishment was disproportionately harsh, considering his claimed minor offense. Briones does not challenge, inter alia: the district court’s determination the disciplinary proceedings comported with the standards of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 560–66 (1974); its conclusion many of Briones’ punishments did not implicate a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, pursuant to Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767–68 (5th Cir. 1997), and Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000); or the DHO’s description of his cell-phone charger as a “cell phone”, when determining his punishment. Therefore, he has abandoned any such challenges. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446–47 (5th Cir. 2010); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). The Code of Federal Regulations’ classification of his offense among those given the “greatest severity level”, does not support Briones’ characterization of his offense as minor. 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 (Table 1). Also, although he contends his punishment was too severe and other offenders receive less severe punishments, his punishment is within the range authorized by the regulation. Id. He has, therefore, failed to establish a constitutional or federal law violation, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
