while the statutory violation i don't understand how they get you here and the constitutional violation it seems to me turns on whether the statute itself is outcome determin another and another set of instances and one of the problems here is your class just seems to be quite diverse but there seems to be a sort of instances in which without making any of those findings they don't really whatever reason it is is that a reviewable term is that terminations is not a discretionary one i think it's a question of whether the discretion can be used without a factual determination without a hearing to determine  well now it would appear to me if the department had told mr elder's we're going to have a hearing because we've decided we're going to do no i your release plan because we're not going to approve your adherents of but you do have an opportunity to do statute what they were was and i would concede that they were pronouncements of the federal constitutional liberty interest and this court has consistently made clear that the state courts determination of federal issues is not binding on the federal  courts so it doesn't matter what the state concluded i would say though that your honor that the the state court misapprehended the precise issue what they use with this broad statement about interest and and there are no early release credits the precise issue that the court should have been looking at for these particular inmates is whether they had a liberty interest in release to the community custody for their sentence expired and it is your position that they have not i'm happy as you have given the statute and the regulations the department could just say have some rights in of the state statute and that right is that if they have earned early release credits that those credits make them eligible to be considered for release and that clearly happened with all the name plaintiffs in this case several released for five days quote no person serving the sentence let's go into this chapter shall leave the confines of the correctional facility or be released prior to the expiration of the sentence except as follows that's clearly the mandatory there are yes it would but in practice and under state law the course of the terms of those inmates who do not a community custody must be released on their release and the evidence that we've presented in this case was that in fact they are and that was an refute that the inmates without community custody are in fact released on their early release date now i think it's important to look at how all the state courts again your question was whether the state courts pronouncement of the federal liberty interest is binding is clearly is not that goes those and the courts focus was on the language and what the court said is that there must be under state law a presumption of relief to the message that's the word that the poor are using result a presumption and they use some other words like case they cite you are just very hearing the case again that wouldn't be binding on his court what the state courts have never really interpreted this section however i would note that this particular section which can change the substance of predicates is not mandatory  is that they may deny them for these reasons and also it does not say that these are the only reasons so for example you could have another legitimate reason for not releasing somebody that's not covered by this say for example an inmate who very safety might be at risk because of the plan that he proposed because he was a criminal or a sex offender that would be a legitimate reason for the department to deny that plant this is not mandatory there is no language  require hearing they did they i think were rightly recognized that this is not an adversarial process that a hearing and when would this be conducted the statute itself is a provides for a collaborat process that occurs over many months and the policy which was submitted indicates that that's the process starts four months before the relieved they say they provide something there's a there's a give and take there there is i mean the case has so that would they do do that much but i think what we're looking at here is a federal constitutional question which is again you have to use the green holds analysis it's it's not sufficient and i would note that the the palace of not set forth any test for this court probably i guess you could call it a clarification and said what the admiral meant to say was were dismissing the entire case which was appropriate in light of this finding if there wasn't a liberty interest so i think that would probably have cured would equalize time we will give you a minute if you'd like to say anything about