failed to demonstrate a violation of due process because he received: (1) advance written notice of the charges; (2) written statement by the fact finders of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary action; and (3) an opportunity to present witnesses and 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. 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. 3

Hardesty

Parraguirre

erry

3 We 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 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge Brian Eugene Lepley Attorney General/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A astro-ow