years old and intoxicated at a bar when a fight broke out between him and his friends and another individual who was a member of a rival motorcycle gang mr smiley just charged with first and second degree murder and th one of his co defendants alleged that mr smiley also stabbed the victim mr smiley has throughout this day always denied that mr smiley was acquitted of first degree murder and he was convicted of second degree murder  on and aiding and abetting theory as to which there was not a requisite finding that he committed the stabbing mr smiley has now been incarcerated for twenty eight years following from mr smiley's liberty interest and his parole date kind of search and due process rights the question arises what are the due process protections that his liberty interest gives him gives him a right to me and i think you've read and reread the report from the state of california and it's a brief mention at the beginning of our being a threat and then there's no more mention time that to discussion which is and it seems a discussion focuses on two things one is prior crime and he had a little bit of a rocky start at the beginning but now he's had of the commitment offense which can change not only ignores the statutory scheme which has regulations that prescribe what a sufficient amount of time as but it also ignores that there is no logical n that one went through a number of different measures and on looking at page twenty of the report concluded and based on his history that he was actually a high risk for violence which he then qualifies by saying that that number ought to be a little bit lower  underlined statement that suggests that because of his history over the past eight years maybe that ought to be downgraded and not to be lower but conclusion based on that is high risk and her bottom line conclusion of the last page which is on your page one twenty five and that was not the basis either as i as i read this report the psychologist went through a fairly lengthy history of all of the prior reports on mr smiley she went through detail summaries of his childhood statutory scheme in order to the proviso that in order to not use those sentencing guidelines there needs to be some connection to the timing of the offense or the gravity of the fence there is nothing there is nothing in the board the failure to do so violators due process rights but the state court decisions denying these crimes was not contrary to or are unreasonable application of any clearly established federal law accordingly he's simply not entitled to federal yes and under green holds the supreme court says that those due process protections include only an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons for the nihil and it clearly says the constitution does not require more in fact they go on to distinguish between parole revocation and disciplinary decisions which are very fact based and require some evidence and say that parole suitability decisions the parole thirty need not cite specific evidence in the record to support his decision based on the more subjective i can just advance or just my problem with that i guess you could never under that theory you would never get relief under and from one of these correct because as long as  they had some document that gave some reason that's all you'd need and that would me because then nothing would be contrary to supreme court at this point there is no supreme based on your construct that if they were able to show that they were not provided the due process protections required under great holes then they would be able to be entitled to release and i got that hearing on a piece of paper that says you're denied that's all you need yes however this is not that case this case the state court applied state law and found that there was more than some evidence to support the state courts decision there are some evidence there is some evidence it was the facts of the crime smiley's criminal history and his sixteen year history of misconduct while in prison mr smiley claims that this is a case like engaged in irons where the court suggested that the crime the denial for all was based on the commitment offense alone but here the board's specifically found that smiley committed serious misconduct while in prison within the really is a model prisoner participating in educational vocational programs and doing art so that there can be some charity involved also  simply that he has recent positive program and relatively short period of discipline free time was outweighed by his violent history prior to incarceration and for the sixteen year first sixteen years of  both like the court noted in irons this court noted in irons and in sas those were inmates with exemplary conduct records this is not and mate with an exemplary conduct record and although he's on the right track the that that was the primary focus of vandenberg the court and then in part clearly said that the inmate is simply not entitled to be released until he's found suitable the question of whether he is entitled to a proportional term under the matrix simply cannot come into a question because he missed first be found suitable parole for parole and there's no mandatory language requiring the board to do that  the needle moves because he did something bad long ago well that's true that's why the historical risk is high based on the immutable factor but i would argue that the needle doesn't move at all when asking the