Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to grant good time credit to prisoners “serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner’s life ” (emphasis added)); see also McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir.1997) (“A habeas corpus proceeding ‘attacks the fact or duration of a prisoner’s confinement and seeks the remedy of immediate release or a shortened period of confinement.’ ”). After concluding there was a factual dispute on the point, the court proceeded to analyze the due process claims under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The court concluded Alexander received the minimum safeguards guaranteed by Wolff and, accordingly, it denied his § 2241 application. Id. at 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (<HOLDING>). Upon review of Alexander’s appellate brief, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in disciplinary proceedings a student must be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and if he denies them an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story (B) recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process (C) holding that procedural due process requires that a student suspended for disciplinary reasons be given oral or written notice of the charges against her and if she denies them an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present her side of the story (D) holding an inmate has a due process right to 1 advance written notice of the disciplinary charges 2an opportunity to call witness and present evidence and 3 a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action (E) holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause
Output (English): holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause