Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 06-3304
v.
(D. Kansas)
Respondent - Appellee.
After examining the brief and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent w ith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
cannot present it now for the first time. See Parker v. Scott, 394 F.3d 1302, 1307
(10th Cir. 2005).
As for his third claim, M r. Kuceras challenge to 28 C.F.R. 541.17 in
district court was based exclusively on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36
(2004), a Sixth Amendment case. But as we have noted, the Sixth Amendment
does not guarantee prisoners the right to confront their accusers in a disciplinary
hearing. M r. Kucera attempts to mount a somewhat broader attack on the
regulation on appeal, but because he did not raise these arguments before the
district court, he cannot do so now. See Parker, 394 F.3d at 1307.
W e AFFIRM the district courts judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-