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 *456 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.