by both the state and the city in his efforts to have his parole file accurately really convey his criminal history the profile that was presented to five separate parole bars boards over a series of years contained errors both in the pre sentence report and the compas report related both to the nature and extent of his infractions while in prison and to the nature of a crime he was convicted of that was committed at the age of fifteen specifically that it was consistently listed as an adult crime rather than a crime committed by a juvenile this is not a claim for him to nature he pleads that there is and the documents in the records at least in two aspects show that there is with respect to the nd or the most recent pre sentence report his his  crime committed at the age of fifteen is still listed with the adult convictions the title has changed from adult to adult court but he pleads that that has continued to cause confusion and can cause confusion while he was before the parole boards looking at the parole board records they seem to understand in a way better than perhaps mr amateur does exactly what the significance of that conviction is don't you think your stronger argument is as to the inclusion or not of the tier three violation well i'm not sure i agree i think that as a nd argument i'm not sure i agree that it's the stronger even the parole decision that released him the most recent of them actually gets his his prior history wrong calling it a y rather than a juvenile offense so the record does clearly remain confused and it took three adjournments to get to that result and so on the paper before the board and we'll get to what we seek here which is both injunctive relief  and damages nominal or otherwise clearly the paper record which is what's going to follow him for the rest of his life was confused enough that that very parole board that released him was confused when it released him and had been s are adequately describes it as a juvenile crime it lists it still under adult court and so the reader there's no way for you to know that in fact mr amoco was fifteen at the time and although tried in adult court was a juvenile offender which is quite different and is differently treated and should be by later parole boards the order appointing us counsel asked us to brief a number issues learned opponents have raised a number of others it's somewhat of almost a law school exam this case i'd like to focus on a couple of them and i know the court may ask you could you focus on what i think is the main event which is whether or not there is a liberty interest in parole in new york or to use it in your brief we've this court has previously held and bar in new york does not create any liberty interest you hold that i don't believe that's game over you don't believe it i do not i do not well he is not i think barnett goes to the core if we had for example he had for example logic claim against the parole board itself for an adequate due process and he was actually seeking to to get out of jail before the board in its discretion allowed him out if i went on barney i win on that issue if i don't win on barn there is still the due process experience the the lack of due process at the hands of the state in preparing the composition of the city and preparing the p s r which are now in order st a prisoner to have an interest in parole that is protected by the  process clause you must have a legitimate expectation see release it's grounded in the state statutory scheme and we've held that that's not the case right in bahrain you've clearly held that that's not the case and we do think that barn when you may be an applicable under that line of cases as it relates to the actual right to get out of prison i don't think they are and applicable as to the process that mr m occur or other prisoners might be put through as they go through it and parole but he does have a right to a parole hearing that is not frustrated well he has a right to a a hearing that conforms the due process clause and he has a right to files to papers with in his his folder within his file that are accurate and i do submit that that's different than a due process right as to whether or not he gets out it's what and and this i also submit your honor well he's out on parole but still subject for the rest of his life to review by the parole system and he has periodic meetings there are provisions under new york law where would he not want to be at some point subject to parole for the rest of his life he could apply for a good conduct certificate he could apply for discretionary discharge of his sentence and these documents will be considered and the idea that that if you piece together all the transcripts all the everything you can come to the accurate conclusion and even if all of us here in the room can all agree that he was fifteen at the time of the st offense the document should reflect that compass report does not we submit the p s r also does not have a compass report clearly does not the wrong boxes checked on that report it's in his file it's unchanged but you're asking for two things it sounds like st you're saying that he has a re had a right at the time of the parole hearings to have accurate or at least not inaccurate to a constitutional degree information is files and i understand that given that those events took place but now you're saying that going forward he has a right to have an error free or at least reasonably error free file for decisions that have not yet been made and applications he has not yet filed there are certainly decisions that have not been made in there certainly applications have not been filed the case law that the parties briefed focused on another way he could come before the probation system which is that he commits another crime and then that's considered in terms of revoking his parole we are not arguing that too hasn't happened yet and we are not arguing that what we are arguing is that he has a statutory right to make the petitions that i have outlined and he should have a right that is not his confinement right this is he's he's out he's a frankly a productive member of society today he should have the right to an error free file a substantial not saying every little thing but a substantially error free file so that his records can be treated fairly when he makes these applications and no there's no date for the hearing he would have to make a decision to make the application i grant that but it's not something that  completely hypothetical he's i believe about fifty five years old he will live the rest of his life under the control of this system unless he makes such applications and even if he doesn't he will periodically come before them and there will be potentially which is significant that year three is the highest form there were five of them that work sponge or even have any sir i don't remember the answer i don't know that there are any tier three as i think he had lower offenses it's in the record i think he had a number of tear threes and i actually but i think it worked in his benefit between thirteen and fifteen because they noted that between then he'd only had three and those weren't expunged it but the the five that were expunged i'm not sure the fi supervision for at least three consecutive years he cannot even apply for a certificate of good conduct until he's exhibited a minimum period of good conduct of five years so this th hour basis for injunctive relief is equally deficient there's also  involves recommendations by the parole officers based on amateurs conduct from when he was on parole and till it would be three years later there would be if you would the profile would still contain documents including his p s eyes and his compass of course but the discretionary discharge term nation is based on his conduct during that period time and then the certificate in the same sense it's based on of good conduct for a period of five years and the most important point though is that this is all speculative it is this request for injunctive relief for lies and speculative assumptions about his future conduct this y agreed correct there are no errors so there are two categories of errors allegedly one of our characters a nation of the crime committed when he was fifty the characterization of that crime is correct in the p s a and in the compass report when he was fifteen he was adjudicated as a juvenile offender under new york law juvenile offenders are a special category of minors who are treated and prosecuted in the adult criminal court system that is clear the law does provide that in exceptional circumstances a juvenile offender may be transferred from adult criminal court to family court that mechanism that did not happen in emigrant doesn't even allege otherwise he admits and could scenes in his own complain his st homicide is listed under the adult court section it states he's been adjudicated adjudicated a juvenile offender for manslaughter st degree if we were to move that offense into the juvenile court section we'd be inserting an error into the has discretion to transfer a case from adult court to juvenile court in the interests of justice for example with the minor were bullied or peer pressured into committing the offense but that none of that happened here the compass report is similarly accurate right now in the compass report states that he has one prior adult court homicide arrest and that's correct changing the answer from one dollar to zero would be inserting an error into the compass report now about the disciplinary history there is confusion here because i believe appointed counsel has misinterpreted its own client's allegations amoco alleges in his complaint that the compass report has this prison misconduct score and this prison misconduct score has improperly weighed these five expunged disciplinary but he wasn't satisfied with the characterization characterization of the st homicide and that's why the board had once again delayed the hearing into september th so when we get to september two thousand and fifteen the board fully understands and there's no confusion regarding his disciplinary history or his criminal history and only then did the board deny him parole waited until it was confident that it understood everything about his criminal and disciplinary history we didn't have the right information so this  nothing in the files now that is inaccurate in addition there's other threshold effects there's collateral stop all that parses damages claim his article seventy petition is an almost identical to his federal complaint in many places although the court has not yet decided whether those who are no longer in custody are subject to the head bar we urge this court to adopt a rule whereby former prisoners are subject to  but those who were never incarcerated and never in custody would not be subject to that  e but in fact the p s r report always had a section that said previous court record it doesn't just say previous criminal history it's previous court record and because he was convicted in adult court it was correctly categorized nonetheless he went to supreme court filed an article seventy eight and if you look at page one hundred and twenty one of the record in the article seventy eight decision it directed the department of probation to amend the p s r report on page two to note that the st offense was  if you look at the record now the amended p s r report which was amended in two thousand and twelve before he was paroled eligible and before his st parole hearing and two thousand and thirteen cents on page two and then again if you look at the record on page ninety correct your honor there's no need to reach the question of whether or not there would be a due process trial a sham through the time of the appointment to yes your honor it's our reading of the record that with the facts as pled which incorporate here incorporate by reference a number of documents that mr ahmed her and next to the complaint that the district court did consider established that not only were there no errors but the board did not rely on any false information and denying parole as my colleague has quite in quite amount a good amount of detail articulate to this court the pro board gave him every opportunity to consider the fact that frankly mr  confused about his p s r and but the parole board was not but the pro board in an excess of caution continually went back to make sure that it understood that the st murder offense when he was fifteen was correctly categorized as a juvenile offender and it was it was correctly categorized both in the p s r and in the compass report which notes that he was age fifteen at the time of his st offense but also notes that it was an adult conviction in addition i would merely say errors in the room file now that will haunt him or concrete the facts today and there are not your honor and for that reason this court need not reach the issue of whether or not murder voluntary manslaughter offenses as an adult that's not what court were you tried in or what did the court system treat you as it's its arrests as an adult he was arrested as a child he was arrested as a fifteen year old that is wrong if nothing else comes out of this there should be an order that that be fixed going forward so that anything that happens to this document going forward it's correct and it's not that we have to rely on three adjournments clearly the records were confusing there wouldn't have been three adjournments or three hearings i should say there were two adjournments the notion that that's what he has to go through because there's some mistakes that are easy to fix mistakes this is not a burden that that's what he has to go through when he next appears before the system and he will appear before the system there's no he's he's on parole of time in fact that's the only basis by which he would not be permitted to apply he i think got actually was released in two thousand and eighteen but i think it was by virtue of a hearing in two thousand and seventeen it took some time afterwards so he's been he's been in society he lives in new york city since two thousand and eighteen  he would like to be a productive member of society going forward and anyone who who will pass the time tests that these statutes require these regulations require to make an application to perhaps some day not to have to be under supervision for the rest of their lives will make them and these are the official documents the people that were involved in the prior hearing are not going to be around at some point the idea of sorry no i  think that is the primary error i think it ought to be direct the p s r is closer to accurate there was an original p s or there was a proceeding where the city was ordered to change that p s or they changed it by at the top of the page that it really said like court proceedings and they move the word court to after the words adult and juvenile putting all of them still under adult and they did out of parents that whole referencing juvenile it's still i think confusing i don't think it should be referenced at all under adult but there you can read it and have ambiguity i would say the ambiguity should be fixed the compass there's no ambiguity it's just wrong references a juvenile that is the less troubling of the two although i do think it's ambiguous where it is focused on question five how many prior murders last voluntary manslaughter offense arrests as an adult yes and the answer is zero but  you really arguing is not that the information is wrong with of the question is vague i don't think the questions vague your honor i mean if it's an arrest as an adult and others treated as an adult in the system as opposed to a juvenile court or a family court gold again i know ambiguity english language isn't precise but this to me says quite clearly arrests as an adult he was fifteen the act of the arrest was not as an adult he was fifteen years old i describing the arrest how many murders last night on three manslaughter offense arrests right and so i think that could be construed as how many times is he arrested for a charge that resulted him  going into the adult system as opposed to the juvenile system it's maybe not a model of clarity but it does seem to me that the objection is to the question and that's maybe a different issue your honor i would s that whether it's to the question or to the answer taken together it creates the wrong impression as a constitutional right to an even bigger is questions on the compass form so that the answers could be misconstrued your honor i think he's has a right to a correct file and the question read with the answer is incorrect i submit there's no ambiguity in the question as to when the time of the arrest is you read it differently so i will say that even if there is ambiguity then he has a right to a file that doesn't lead some readers to believe i would say almost all that he had one arrest as an adult for a manslaughter or murder he didn't  available to the people who have this file is also other documentation that shows what he was arrested for and when right it might be over vailable to them if they pulled the right files but this is plainly incorrect on the face it and it caused the confusion that led to three hearings so it is clearly something subject to different cause confusion on the part of your client more than any more than the  delayed things to make sure that you aren't making a mistake i don't like you to me that there's much likelihood that anybody down the road parole officers or anyone else are going to be confused by your honor i would submit that that's a jury question if it comes to it but i also would submit that they were confused if you look at the joint appendix at page one hundred and twelve dollars they end up noting this is actually when he actually gets out they end up noting his first offense they call it a y o it wasn't a y o that's different that they didn't even read the records correctly when they let him out