i would like to begin i know that this same topics to discuss now great detail in the last previous cases but i'd like to begin by talking about my particular client and my particular case my particular client is convicted of murder two he's been in prison at the time of this hearing of this parole are this appeal approximately fourteen years and it was his second parole hearing and was based upon determination of this minimum eligible probate and they're the ones that fixed that minimum eligible pro day and when he went to have his hearing these fourteen years he's been in prison it's been exemplary prisoner he his psychological reviews all of which said that he was a that his chance for repetitive violence was very low and he was denied a parole based upon the factors of the crime and what i'm here today to talk about is there was no reasoning or no logical explanation given for that other than the factors of the crime he did it met every other criteria that the board requires but they turned him down because of the crime now i know two previous discussions here today that are there that can be a reason for turning down someone but  what we're saying is that there should be an explanation there is a right for group process to require an explanation as to why these factors outweigh those factors in determining parole we call that  review anything if you don't have a minimum evidence rule then you have the wholly arbitrary get provision of liberty we can't say someone goes to jail or stays in jail because of the color of his eyes or the clothes it is wearing there has to be a reason why these things happen and that's why we feel that it's been discussed previously the california state law says that you will stay in prison if how do we argue with the state court making and awaiting of one case versus the other and saying if you know rosencrantz is here and that might net you a positive result this case is different than rosencra factors right or misread i'm not sure we should even say they are misreading rosenhaus decision but how i would read and benchmark that decision if the state court walk through the various factors well that's just one of needs to be done and it needs to be tied how we used this my client now is going to prison for twenty two years he's gotten a parole greatest ministers from the governor the last couple of years as well but they did it for the same reason as you have i this twenty two years is fourteen years of still your conduct in prison is that outweigh the crime and still why that is never answered that is never analyzed and that is what we're discussing today or i'm discussing today  in order for the justice to be done in order for due process to be served there has to be an analysis i personally am disappointed in the argument that some  evidence is not required because the supreme court hasn't said that because we know that without some evidence that the person are the inmate is wholly deprived of liberty this  reason why we have the court system so that people cannot arbitrarily keep deny someone else's liberty or take something away from them some evidence is the minimum you can go without going down to that no threshold at all a all and that is what we're arguing here today and again like i said this has been argued over and over the third time i don't want to waste the court's time going back on his arguments but this is the first reason here today is to beseech the court to understand that there has to be a nexus between current dangerousness and it has to be explained you cannot throw away twenty two years or fourteen years of good behavior of doing what you're supposed to do nearly thirty years tired of no violence in his history and this is an aberration his life in those factors are factors that must be explained if they're going to be ignored and making the decision ok pamela b hooly on behalf of the respondent and appellee again in this case the district court properly concluded that the federal petition put should be denied because the state courts did not unreasonably apply an upheld the board's decision this is a case that does not revolve clearly around mr adams crime but also his attitude toward it he had consistently told different stories about the crime he claimed it was self defense he shot someone seven times stabbed him as well it was not unreasonable for the state courts to uphold court's decision in that context especially where the board found that mr adams frankly wasn't truthful during his hearing or during his meetings with the clinicians for the reports that were used for the hearing there are simply no basis to overturn the district court's decision unless the court has questions to or direct me to th  port because adams had not been completely truthful during that interview and also expressed doubts about veracity during the hearing and that's in the excerpts of record adams excerpts tab one pages sixty nine to seventy one