read as some kind of time marker and certainly that was the concern that the attorney general's office expressed this morning that in some point spending enough time in prison believe in three charlie manson that's not state law that's not due process for federal law that's not what we're arguing in these cases you know a lot of ways these cases that are making this mistake with this two step analysis that we are sorting applies is looking for a checkbox methodology something that makes these cases simple to decide because there are so many of them and i appreciate the courts and judges writers are concerned about time management in these cases how do you handle them in reality these cases even though we in the poem in order say they're an unusually complex are not fact complex but they are facts specific to each individual and that's where it becomes a burden on us as advocates in and on the court but that's not any different than in a social security going to straight of appeal that's not any different than in a search warrant appeal that's not any right issue doesn't exist and that's where green holsten allen play into this there is a constitutional liberty interest to parole in california for these class of client for our clients our prisoners and that's what's important about pig i recognize that unless i answer goes on bank which it may or might that's up to you folks not me to decide at this point that's what this panel is bound by so that's the first component there is a liberty interest you have to decide now whether it's has been violated ok if you can do that in a couple different ways and depending on how you want to apply the anti terrorism act whether you want to look at the unreasonableness the state court decision first or whether you want to do there is no violation in the cases where there is ample evidence to support the various factual findings that the board makes that are adopted that are recognised by the spirit court decision or whatever state court decision is and if in the simple cases say for example the prisoner was pepper sprayed because of a fist fight two months before the pro hearing in the board relies on f x that's not anything in any of our cases and not mr hatcher's case you would say that there's ample evidence to support this person's constitutional rights are not violated there's evidence to support that he's a current danger to the public and then you don't even have to get to what did the state the state court of so you know it's he could have made some kind of bureaucratic mistake and talk about somebody else's factors that wouldn't you know somebody else's case they confuse case names or something that would not give him a right in federal court to release because he has a constitutional right that has not been violated so in our guy's case mr hatteras case he most of those don't even apply but the commitment offense and his lack of parole plans are sufficient under current state law or the board never relied on parole plans so if you get a look at any anti terrorism act analysis that factual isn't is an unreasonable factual finding and into the record it's not through the board and rely on it's not true so that's one aspect of it so your this is a case that brings you down to the only what is this the liberty interest it's an issue it's his right to be paroled the attorney general keeps saying that this class of prisoners only had a hope that's wrong under federal law that is wrong under state law that is wrong that's what green holds allen and that's what the state courts interpretation of thirty one forty one b tells us these folks have an absolute right to be found suitable parole and have a pro real estate set once they no longer pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public obviously we disagree vehemently about when that event happens yes well that's we're right back where we started this is the you know one hundred million dollar question as you said the commitment o but if you push everything else aside and say it's just the commitment offense and it's described in detail through various documents here and there's no dispute mr hatcher even though he doesn't remember because of his drug you know more atrocious etc because of the various aspects so we're back to the big question here is how does the federal court sit in judgment of the state court decision on that ok well this is the course the station is the commitment in isolation sufficient to be some evidence to support that he currently is in two thousand and three is a danger the public it can't be because the saying facts in glen turner situation where he committed the same offense against the found him suitable now we don't know the specifics of it but it highlights the point that it's becoming an offense never in isolation none of these cases are decided a selection in one day and in verse says the state likes to talk about the aggravated nature burke but what those cases say it's if there are those extra things those become important those are sufficient when they indicate that the person the present remains a danger to the the board basically says he needs to continue to appreciate a pig in the self help and until then he is unpredictable and a threat to others so more than even in some of the other cases we have with a very specific finding about threat and dangerousness and then they go on to talk about the crime and then they say he hasn't really and just and he needs additional time to gain programming so that he can actually kind of acknowledge and deal with the facts of how he came here so what here it seems that they've offered at least some evidence even if you disagree with their programming with it into i think was two thousand and one he pointed out no it was back in the ninety's i've done it when i heard in two thousand and one i need to do it continuously i said you're right and i started he's been doing it since so superior court rejected that  law because we've already addressed these issues substantially in the prior cases i would like to respond to appellants arguments first of all this is a pure court decision in this case found that determinations in addition to appellate or agree that the some evidence has to be confined to the crime of conviction could you repeat that your honor you agree that there's some evidence that the state court found has to be confined to a crime of conviction in other words the prole plan that the state court mentioned was something that the board never reached really no your honor the the will the board can consider any evidence before it you know what i'm going to i think it's my understanding is that the state court gave two reasons one was to create the nature of the crime of which he was convicted and the other was that he didn't have a parole plan but you argument is that the board never considered whether he had after all planned so we can't really rely on that reason and the hands of the state court well your honor if you will refer to the trial court decision it's x or it's a record number for the trial court's decision is actually a total of four pages long and it goes through fairly all of the decisions or all of the things analyzed by the board in making its determination it is only one sentence in which they say they doubt the board's decision and they come back to say that only a modicum of evidence is required and therefore the some evidence standard is met and there's some evidence they just agreed with a lot of the evidence before the board  that they disagree with some of the considerations that the board made some of the statements the board made right but so are you would you base your argument and just on the offense of conviction or your gene other things as well that make him dangerous i would not rely solely on the commitment offense because i believe that according to california state law this state courts are only entitled to consider the board's decision first on evidence they are not allowed to reweigh the evidence so they're really weighing the evidence and their decision they're not authorized to do that although they have in this case but if necessary i believe that the commitment offense itself is more than some evidence of the the appellant danger to society not only did he commit a kidnapping he kidnapped an eighteen year old girl and he sexually assaulted her nine times over a twenty four hour period he also blames the crime on his abuse of drugs and alcohol and at one point says that he blacked out and couldn't remember the crime then he three or in addition to that two thousand and three was when the hearing was and then he pledges when he gets out to attend at a a and hey but we don't know that that's a prediction and the board cannot predict what he's going to do the board can only review what the inmate has done and while he's been incarcerated while he's been incarcerated at least for the eighteen years prior to this hearing he had only attended a total of five years worth of a and a hearing that's not enough not enough for somebody who who kidnaps a girl and sexually assaults her nine times and then blames his conduct on on alcohol and drug abuse alcohol and drug abuse is a life time problem and he's only been dedicated to attending a a and a in relation to the board's instructions to him to do stuff i guess but the point is that we don't really know what the supreme court did because the superior court judge says that there's some of the the boy's arguments that they don't  evidence for and then they say but there is evidence for the crime of conviction and parole plans so the question is all of your arguments don't really go to his parole plan so correct i think that can be a question where do they even come up with the parole plans issue it isn't in the board's five page decision it's unclear to me where they were i think i would have to x that out right ok so then we're back to the crime of conviction right and as you read the superior court decision then is there anything else we should loo well i believe that they found some evidence to support that denial and i don't believe that that's a pure court has to go through and numerate every single reason why it found some evidence so although it addressed the commitment offense and the lack of parole plans which admittedly i'm not sure where they got that information that does not preclude them from considering all of the other factors that were considered by the board and and and they found some evidence and that's what they need to find is some evidence they found a modicum of the evidence that was required and therefore their decision should be  closing i would just like to let advise the court that under federal law hatcher received all of the process due he got an opportunity to be heard and he got a written statement of the decision he does not contest but regardless there is some evidence therefore i would request that this court affirm the district court's decision unless the court has any more questions asked of mitt going to be thank you thank you he's just