two issues on appeal. First, he reasserts the Fifth Amendment due process claim he raised below. Second, he claims that Defendants’ actions violated the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Because Plaintiff did not raise this second issue before the district court, we do not consider it on appeal. See Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir.19 63830, at *2 & n. 1 (10th Cir. Nov.23, 1999) (concluding that conditions of prisoner’s two-year confinement in administrative detention, including restricted telephone privileges and requirement that he eat all of his meals alone in his cell, were not so different as compared with normal incidents of prison life as to give rise to a protected liberty interest); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 642
holding that 30day loss of cell and commissary privileges does not implicate due process concerns holding that punitive conditions of pretrial confinement implicate due process holding that 30day commissary and cell restrictions did not implicate the due process clause holding that thirtyday commissary and cell restrictions did not implicate due process concerns holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process