appeal from this district court summary judgment in favor of the government defendants dismissing her just claims the defendants misrepresented hirsch's criminal conduct from the nonconsensual sexual touching for which he was convicted to labeling him a racist rapist as a consequence when he began a sex offender counseling program in prison he was told that he would have to admit to raping the complainant to participate in the program he was completely shocked he told defendant catherine per nat that he was never charged much much less convicted of rape and she told him it wasn't her problem hers was also told that if he admitted to one charge crimes his admission could lead to for the prosecution thus he was faced with the hobson's choice of either not participate in the sex offender program and losing ten months of good time credit or participate in the program being forced to admit to a crime he never committed didn't he oh he's to admit to any time in the lives of which he was convicted that way that's not there's no clear evidence that he took that the the evidence  ccused of a fabricated rape charge so he was including those statements these additional allegations against him moreover the central issue was whether he was prepared to take responsibility for the conduct for which he was convicted in the context of the sex offender program not you know he maintained his innocence he was entitled to pursue his appeals but he knew that once he was in this program he was going to have to admit to some conduct otherwise he wouldn't successfully complete the program steve said your client acknowledged his deposition that the intake interview he said i believe that is incorrect so to the best of my reading of the record he did not hit me even to the crimes of which use convicted not because he had not yet entered the program we're in a therapeutic context he would be able to do that you know in a controlled way those statements were also as i as i mentioned made after a whole slew of it wasn't just rape it was menacing stalking all these other things that weren't actually part of his criminal record so he was not he's also not a lawyer he was also say test before the program what he he did say was the the conflict came when the defendant pariah her net said you have to admit to this rape charge or you will not get in and he said i am not going to do that because i was never charged with that i wasn't convicted check your records and she said you know that's not my property i have to admit to it because you have to admit to anything i think what happened was she said you're not going to get through this program unless you're prepared to admit to this so we actually ended up signing a refusal form and once you get into the palmer might be asked about  your expected to be forthcoming and he unequivocally testified it's in his declaration that he knew exactly what he was doing which is he transferred to this prison a different prison to take this program he knew that to successfully complete it and get his ten months of good time credit he would have to admit to certain things no matter how distasteful he was going to do it now you know  in the program and he wasn't sincere enough you know he might have failed but that's just speculation and remember that the time it wound its committee that and the bo examiners that scored him for his rest level only looked at his purported refusal to participate in the program which he couldn't do because of the rape  charge they didn't look at these other pieces of evidence so it required the district court to kind of speculate as to what those bodies would have done had they seen the entire picture which is he refused to participate in the program because he couldn't admit to the rate they didn't look at these other extraneous pieces that were taken out of context and again it's the evidence he gave and it was not rebutted by any admissions by him outside of those equivocal letters that he was going to do what it took to get through that program of parts of the pre sentence airport were objected to by his lawyer and were ordered straight in by the trial judge that never happened and so that on read acted pre sentencing report ended like that in the record here the only thing i saw was the colloquy between the defense counsel and the court about striking parts of the pre sentencing report no ignition were correct and her shut adequate procedural safeguards under state law to challenge those determinations moreover persist claims fail at the outset because both defendants  qualified immunity as to her tour of the claims are untimely and neither defendant had any articulable connection to the determinations he challenges here i want to first address a response to a question posed by judge livingston had did hersh in his that position testify as to whether he had in the intake interview with defendant or toro had acknowledged that he was guilty of even the crime he had committed and i quote the question was the answer he gave in his the position this is a page sixty two of the joint appendix is if i had committed the crime that i was charged with i told him i did not i pled not guilty it went to trial in addition to his statements at his that position there's ample evidence in the record dating back to two thousand and two demonstrating that hersh at no point accepted responsibility for any crime even those for which he was convicted by a jury if you go back to the statement he made when he refused to consent to sex offender treatment that was in two thousand and six he said i am not guilty of any crime the board when it was determining both the denial of the good time credits and the risk level determination had this information in front of them we kno brief even with those ten points he would still be a level two sex offender and thus there was no there was no change in the score so there was no due process violation there and that score that risler will determination  challenge in state court again he went before supreme court and this is what's one sixty eight of the record were supreme court acknowledges that hersh has and i quote repeated past and present refusal to accept responsibility for his crimes so it's undisputed that the district court has no material issue of fact as to his acceptance of responsibility and on that basis alone there's no there's no evidence to support the due process claim if the court doesn't want to reach the merits i wrote for the reasons explained in our brief  there is no there's no protected liberty interest in good time credits that's clear from this court's decision in abbott armstrong there's also no liberty interest in perot we know that from know the state  that discusses good time credits new york are actually three clearly says a good time credits may be granted or may be withheld there's no priest there's no requirements it's a completely discretionary decision in this in this instance hersh had the opportunity to which to just briefly address the issue of whether there is any constitutionally protected interest in good time credits  o this court in rodriguez first as greenfield ending graziano versus pataki stated or suggested without deciding whether it actually applied in that in those cases that there was a minimal due process interest in having a parole decision made free of arbitrary and capricious you know conduct on the part of the decision makers well but i think he wasn't offered the opportunity to get into this program but since he was i don't see how it analogy to you know the words at all he the reason why he didn't participate in the program again is because he was told that if he hadn't admitted to rape he could be prosecuted for it so he refused to do that and that's why so the but the proximate cause of his constitutional injury decisions at the time they were made that is the definition of the rape the alleged fabricated rape charge how his troops modified from penetration to rape did he ever at a county he was told that by pranab in prison that he was accused of rape but he didn't know who created that he thought it was suffolk county  and so he his appeals were internal at the prison he he he went to the grievance committee but he didn't articulate how this whole thing had come about he just said that his records were incorrect but he didn't take any specific appeals he would indeed an attorney in to do that i just wanted to to touch on the good time credits liberty interest issue again i think it's a bit of a red herring that i chased for a little bit might a deadly  that in the cases that the government sites and the district court sided deal with whether the decision makers for paro good time credits properly exercised her discretion and took into account the specified factors in the governing statutes our cases is different in that our case is more akin to  decision makers for good time credits that case actually did involve good time credits and the court found that the defendant had stated in one nine hundred eighty three case for denial of good time credits based on a faulty earlier disciplinary proceedings and i think that's a little bit more akin to our case we're not challenging the exercise of discretion by the time allowance committee in the present they said you didn't participate in the program you're not going to get your credit but they didn't know why he didn't participate in the counseling program