Cross (Anthony) v. Warden

 disciplinary form III, failed to allow him to appeal, and found him guilty
with inadmissible and insufficient evidence.
Appellant failed to demonstrate a violation of due process
because he received: (1) advance written notice of the charges; (2) written
statement of the fact finders of the evidence relied upon and the reasons
for disciplinary action; and (3) a qualified right to call witnesses and
present evidence. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974).
Confrontation and cross-examination in prison disciplinary proceedings
are not required because these procedures present "greater hazards to
institutional interests." Id. at 567-68. Further, some evidence supports
the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing officer, Superintendent v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), and therefore, appellant failed to
demonstrate that he was entitled to relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
Piekuu:tio , J.
Pickering
, J.
2We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 194?A (ats0
cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge
Anthony Cross
Attorney General/Carson City
White Pine County District Attorney
Attorney General/Ely
White Pine County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A