approach here even though but what about the liberty interest if you've already been granted parole and then you lose it because the governor takes a fact so to speak does that change things at all now because actually the bluebirds granted to the current so long as out and there is so much that this happened in the intervening time now i think it's considerably possible that you have a case that it's done thirty years but nothing has happened in the intervening time that would make you believe safety his prior criminal history asked they did they relied on the fact that it was escalating in that he had a period of about a year and a half where he was committing robberies and then this murder grew out of that those robberies of having a partner those robberies but that's liberty interest is created based on this statutory language and the court must look to the state statute to see if there's mandatory language which gives the prisoner some experience do you speak up a little one louder i'm also acknowledged that the state court decisions have some varing on whether a state creates a liberty interest in paul began in her decision by the california supreme court discuss the state's mandatory language that decision didn't expressively dissolve the issue of whether there's a liberty interest in california but it did say that the language is not mandatory because it says shall followed by unless her  safety that's a hard question for me to answer because the current risk to public safety comes from state law it just simply doesn't come from the united states supreme court law is there any evidence i'm asking about what the record shows and you're working hard to answer that  the record shows that this particular inmate was convicted of first degree murder unlike mr hayward who was convicted of second degree murder there was some provocation in the story he wants case it was a heat of passion type of case there victims were involved there was a series of robberies mr dunn playing threatens a victim of one of those robberies at gunpoint and then he followed through with the murder of the victim he also had an escalating pattern of criminal conduct prior to the offense and i would also state that he word was very clear that he would apply to the facts of that case and this court stated that it was not creating a bright line rule for your future  that the board can rely on the crime or in changing factors this court's precedent is presently on settle on that would be interesting your comments were green holds this in the scheme in terms of what our i quote on page fifteen of the greenhills decision nothing in the poll process requires the parole of forty to specify the particular evidence in the inmates file or at his interview on which it rests the discretionary determination that an inmate is not ready for release if the particular evidence is not required then how can the some evidence standard apply it simply cannot and the reason why  respect to conduct in prison no they did review his conduct and again he work adopts california due process it doesn't stay with the federal requirements of due process the only way that this court should look to state law is to determine number one is there a liberty interest what d case say about the liberty interest and then secondly does the state court just asian is it contrary to or and reasonable application of controlling supreme court authority if there's a liberty interest in this case it's not a greater liberty supreme court could have done that and it never again just because california requires compliance with the state regulations doesn't mean federal due process requires a federal jury process as a national standard that applies across national boundaries it finds that there's an unreasonable risk to public safety based on the following criteria and the statute lists the criteria provided the decision is based on the criteria that unreasonable risk is inherent in the decision  course the criteria to satisfy that standard service regards to the remedy to the extent that there is a due process violation we would submit because the state interest is so high in comparison to the minimal liberty counsel the case just argued will be submitted for a decision