did not comply with the antiterrorism in effect of death penalties deference standard because the state court decision below did not was not an unreasonable application of clearly established supreme court  nor did the state courts make an unreasonable determination of the facts the second reason for the appeal is that the district court abused its discretion after overturning the state's decision by ordering this inmates release in this case the initial question is whether there is a liberty interest and that issue is before this court presently on rehearing in sas but even conceding that there is a liberty interest parole is fundamentally a state issue the liberty interest arises from state law the state is interpreted is entitle to deference in the interpretation of its own statutes and under california law a commitment offense can be relied upon to deny parole in the district court and on appeal mr sanchez relies repeatedly on picked up from big sis again as recognized in sas that's merely dicta concerning whether the crime can be relied upon you know the supreme court law prevents that and sas recognizes that that was not binding on the state courts secondarily even if there were a due process violation the appropriate remedy would have been a court did was inappropriate should not have ordered the release of someone who's been found unsuitable for parole and there is indeed some evidence in the record and again assuming that there are some evidence standard applies for evaluating parole suitability determinations california courts have applied to some evidence standard for reviewing but there is no clearly established federal law that requires to some evidence standard in the context of parole decisions in fact green hope suggests that there may be a very different standard for predictive suitability decisions as compared to disciplinary decisions which look backwards but even allowing that to some evidence standard applies there is some evidence in this case that the crime demonstrates mr sanchez's lack of  counsel may know better where he stands with having a subsequent review because these proceedings are expedited but they would be my understanding that under california law he would be entitled to another review in a year assuming the governor's decision is allowed to stand in the district court's decision here is reversed everything's i stand still until we we do our thing no he would be put on calendar actually no that's correct because we've thought the state of the order requiring his release so he would not be put on calendar presently because the order that's being appealed overturned the governor's decision and inject the district court in two because of a difference of opinion making a suitability decision which draws in to  this in effect stays the district court order of released right it doesn't stop the state of california from giving him another hearing and having a new governor signed off on it of no but at this point he wouldn't be schedule for one because presently th the governor's decision is on hold that's my understanding i'd have to confirm that with the board but given that this case exists i don't know that they would put him on for a hearing i'd have to check that college as for not knowing presumably he could have another hearing because as time goes by when decisions are made where there are reversals by the governor there are subsequent board hearings in the board is then permitted to consider any new and additional info information that's come forward will make my only point was he he's already won before the board so if he static the parole statute in california allows that the timing gravity and circumstance of the crime are relevant so if the new board looks at him presumably he's put the crime further behind himself so that would go in his favor but if for example disciplinary problems occur  reverse governor davis decision and allow him to be paroled well obviously the pollens position would be that governor davis decision does have some evidence in the record supporting it so there would be no need for a remand but if i thought i heard you arguing that that some evidence standard is a creature of federal appellate cases and that there is no supreme court case on point that's so whole that's also true the california courts in this court have imported the some  standard from the disciplinary context of them had it right from tell exactly the prison discipline case this is that you can't discipline somebody without some evidence some paces in fact that's exactly why they committed the disciplinary violation and i guess our panel relied upon the hill standard when it declares that there's a liberty interest in the rule but you're saying that's not good enough as a matter of add to that and tell the supreme court extends hill to the parole context there is no standard that the supreme court has articulated so the california courts are free to apply whatever california law that's exactly correct your honor and in fact they have applied to some evidence standard but for purposes under green holds the only law that does set forth what the standards are for liberty interest so long as there was a feeling and an opportunity to be heard in a decision to make up the due process he needed and therefore the petition understanding is that he can be released to immigration custody and and that he would stay there pending this court's ultimate decision the reason that that request was made what jurisdiction would we have at this point over over the department of homeland security we don't have a petition for review pending on his behalf from be determination do we why wouldn't the uterus be free if he wants to waive his rights under the immigration laws why wouldn't they be free to simply deport him as a convicted aggravated founder guatemala well it seems to me that the district court and certainly this court could issue is released under the under the heaviest statute that are the his rules that he released to the immigration has to be but not departed pending the ultimate decision of this court inmate he's been placed in administrator's segregation for his own protection and you know he is somebody the minister disaggregation as a much more restrictive movement type thing  segregation and before we got even to the state order being out is by the ninth circuit he had applied for a transfer to another prison where he could go we enter the general population and my understanding is that the have another parole hearing after this i mean i don't have those documents perhaps it's very general can for them to me i understand i don't know all the exact details i believe in a parole was denied but not for any new evidence not for any disciplinary problems but i don't know what the circumstances are i understand that the department of corrections or the board of prison terms or whatever they're called and they continue to hold schedule presumably they're on hearings while the earlier paroled and there is no new evidence that changes the situation in other words if you haven't gotten in any trouble he hasn't and you know there's no reason to rescind it obviously you know that it doesn't it doesn't make it now well i think it makes it moot if he were granted parole i think that you know that would move him presumably we don't know i guess the board may very well have denied parole based on governor davis that's correct i don't happened i don't know but i could certainly take it upon myself to try to find out and get all the request on the paperwork and i'm sort of the attorney general's office would would cooperate in that regard in terms of the decision that the district court made standard of review very carefully and gave due deference to the state court's decision and the governor's decision does not comply with the do excuse me stated i've always said it's my fault you know i was young and stupid i take full responsibility for what happened i'm very sorry i feel really horrible about what happened for the and the board itself found that he showed genuine remorse and he was  accepting responsibility for it and so that is a simply an inaccurate statement even under california law the governor's decision was run under in rosencrantz the other statements  but i think that if you look at you know this entire offense took place within of the thirty minutes between the initial confrontation with the man came over and started beating on his car with a baseball bat and then you know mr sanchez becoming and raising and angered and running off find his friends and saying he wanted revenge and it was it was it escalated very quickly it was a very tragic thing to happen is certainly not to minimize the tragedy of what happened here but if we look at a lot of the other parole cases that have come not only before this court before the california supreme court in comparison to those other cases take rosencrantz for instance we're not who's also convicted of second go briefly through several points the last question being the first the information is in the excerpt on date forty eight the respondents excerpts they're both listed as e r since we filed simultaneous briefs it was a violation of one of the seven eight secondarily it was in the leave that's just it doesn't state whether it's murder one or murder two i believe it's murder one since the charge range was twenty five to life according to the information and second degree murder is fifteen to life so that would indicate that it was a murder one and as you pointed out there was a solicitation charge as well which does escalate the crime to beyond the minimum elements necessary to sustain the conviction in this case noted specifically that the assault with a deadly weapon and resulting murder were not an immediate reaction to a sudden provocation or heat of passion incident so that's not correct in this case that was rejected both at trial and on appeal which resulted in the second story that's we got a jury nullification case where the jury decided to return a second degree murder for reasons we just don't know i believe that was because this was in response to his claim that he should have gotten an instruction on a voluntary manslaughter charge instead he was trying to reduce it further and the pallet court rejected that theory as for minimized responsibility there is some evidence in the record and that's all that's necessary the governor's decision is not clearly erroneous under california law he's entitled to weigh the evidence differently and in this case he gave great credence to the fact that during the hearing mr sanchez continued to say he wasn't it wasn't his idea to go back and seek revenge where this innocent man was killed might time's up but i