Document: 442 U.S. 1 99 S.Ct. 2100 60 L.Ed.2d 668 John B. GREENHOLTZ, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.INMATES OF the NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX al. No. 78-201. Argued Jan. 17, 1979. Decided May 29, Syllabus Under Nebraska statutes a prison inmate becomes eligible for discretionary parole when his minimum term, less good-time credits, has been served. Hearings are conducted in two stages to determine whether grant or deny parole: initial review hearings and final hearings. Initial must be held at least once year every inmate. At first stage, Board of Parole examines inmate's preconfinement postconfinement record, holds an informal hearing; interviews considers any letters statements presented support claim release. If determines that is not yet good risk release, it denies parole, stating why release was deferred. likely candidate hearing scheduled, which may present evidence, call witnesses, represented by counsel. A written statement reasons given if denied. One section (§ 83-1,114(1)) provides "shall" order unless concludes should deferred one four specified reasons. Respondent inmates, who had denied brought class action Federal District Court, upheld their Board's procedures them procedural due process. The Court Appeals, agreeing, inmates same kind constitutionally protected "conditional liberty" interest as recognized Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 471, 92 2593, 33 484, also found statutorily defined, protectible § 83-1,114(1), required, inter alia, formal adverse decision include evidence relied upon Board. Held: 1. reasonable entitlement process created merely because State possibility such providing no more than mere hope benefit will obtained. revocation, certain standards met, supra, entails deprivation liberty involving initially wholly retrospective factual question parolee violated parole. involves denial desired depends on amalgam elements, some but many purely subjective evaluations Pp.9-11. 2. While language structure 83-1,114(1) mechanism entitled constitutional protection, procedure all with respect decision. Pp.11-16 (a) required Appeals would provide best negligible decrease error. Since Parole's its made largely basis file, this adequately safeguards against serious risks error thus satisfies Pp. 14-15. (b) Nothing concepts requires specify particular "evidence" file interview rests determination affords opportunity heard denied, informs what respects he falls short qualifying parole; these circumstances, nothing being Constitution. Pp 15-16. 576 F.2d 1274, reversed remanded. Ralph H. Gillan, Lincoln, Neb., petitioners. William Alsup, San Francisco, Cal., United States, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Brian K. Ridenour, respondents. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion We granted certiorari decide Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment applies parole-release determinations Parole, and, so, currently meet requirements. 2 * Inmates Penal Correctional Complex under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming they unconstitutionally Parole. suit filed individual members claims 3 both mandatory automatic served maximum credits. Neb.Rev.Stat. 83-1,107(1)(b) (1976). An 83-1,110(1). Only involved case. 4 used arise partly from statutory provisions practices. Two types conducted: each inmate, regardless eligibility. 83-192(9).1 hearing, entire record. Following examination introduced, wishes 5 record personal makes recommendations designed help correct deficiencies observed. It schedules another take place within year. 6 scheduled. then notifies month held; exact day time posted bulletin board accessible hearing. witnesses private counsel choice. traditional adversary since permitted hear testimony cross-examine evidence. However, complete tape recording preserved. furnishes 30 days. 83-1,111(2).2 II 7 did satisfy concluded interest, 484 (1972), fell guarantees, prescribed several specific 8 On appeal, Eighth Circuit agreed Morrissey- type, conditional stake 83-1,114 however, 1285, modified follows: 9 When receive full 10 notice precise reasonably advance setting forth factors considered reaching decision; 11 (c) subject only security considerations, appear person before documentary own behalf. Except unusual right behalf; 12 (d) proceedings, capable reduced writing, maintained; 13 (e) after submit explanation, facts denying 14 court's holding mandating foregoing conflicts decisions other Courts see, e. g., Brown Lundgren, 528 1050 (CA5), cert. 429 917, 97 308, 50 283 (1976); Scarpa States 477 278 (CA5) (en banc), vacated moot, 414 809, 94 79, 38 44 (1973); Scott Kentucky Board, 74-1899 (CA6 15, 1975), remanded consider mootness, 60, 342, 218 See Franklin Shields, 569 784, 800 (CA4 1977), 435 1003, 98 1659, 56 (1978); ex rel. Richerson Wolff, 525 797 (CA7 425 914, 96 1511, 47 764 resolve conflicts. 439 817, 76, 58 107. III 15 government deprives property; accordingly, there claimed we have inquired into nature individual's interest. 16 "[T]o requirements apply place, look 'weight' stake." Regents Roth, 564, 570-571, 2701, 2705-2706, 548 (1972). 17 This meant obtain 18 "a clearly abstract need desire it. He unilateral expectation must, instead,have legitimate it." Id., 577, 2709. 19 There inherent convicted conditionally released expiration valid sentence. natural indistinguishable resistance confined. But conviction, safeguards, extinguished right: "[G]iven criminal defendant deprived liberty." Meachum Fano, 427 215, 224, 2532, 2538, 49 451 20 Decisions Executive Branch, however impact, do automatically invoke protection; simply guarantee executive decisionmaking comply assure error-free determinations. 225, 2538; Montanye Haymes, 236, 2543, 466 Moody Daggett, 78, 88 n. 9, 274, 279, 236 especially true sensitive choices administrative 21 state may, has, establish system, duty so. Moreover, insure state-created system serves public-interest purposes rehabilitation deterrence,3 general defining conditions authority. surprising defined combination which, shown, mandate Indeed, very institution still experimental stage. In releases, like siblings probation rehabilitation, few certainties exist. case, differs mold judicial choice synthesis observation filtered through experience decisionmaker leading predictive judgment community.4 latter conclusion assess whether, light crime, minimize gravity offense, weaken deterrent impact others, undermine administration justice. inquiry is, sense, "equity" type cannot always articulated findings. IV 22 Respondents suggest theories view calls mandated Appeals. First, whenever Alternatively, Nebraska's statute, (1976), creates invoking protections. A. 23 theory, respondents rely heavily where parole-revocation standards. Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 93 1756, 36 656 (1973). They argue ultimate underlying situations accorded protection. 24 fallacy respondents' position revocation quite different. crucial distinction between desires. parolees (and probationers ) were could "be gainfully employed [were] free family friends form enduring attachments normal life." U.S., 482, 2600. here, hand, confined necessary restraints inhere prison. 25 second important difference confinement termination lies As Morrissey, actually decisions: fact acted violation recommitted either society's benefit. 479-480, 2599. "The step question." 479, 26 decision, subtle appraisals based difficult task evaluating advisability Unlike set favorable individual. determination, prisoner-transfer 27 "for variety often involve[s] informed predictions serve [correctional purposes] safety welfare inmate." S.Ct., 2538. 28 turns "discretionary assessment multiplicity imponderables, entailing primarily man become rather done." Kadish, Advocate Expert—Counsel Peno-Correctional Process, 45 Minn.L.Rev. 803, 813 (1961). 29 differences well recognized. Bey Connecticut 443 1079, 1086 (CA2 1971), Second took note critical distinction: "It sophistic attach greater importance person's justifiable reliance maintaining freedom so long abides anticipation freedom." 31 Judge Henry Friendly cogently noted "there human losing getting wants." Friendly, "Some Kind Hearing," 123 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1267, 1296 (1975). F.2d, 1053; 282; 799 (Field, J., dissenting); Johnson Chairman, New York 500 925, 936 1974) (Hay, dissenting). 32 That out To extent asserted here substantial transferred prison, supra. B Respondents' argument itself part: 34 "Whenever committed offender shall because: 35 "(a) conform "(b) His depreciate seriousness crime promote disrespect law; 37 "(c) substantially effect institutional discipline; "(d) continued correctional treatment, medical care, vocational training facility enhance capacity lead law-abiding life later date." (1976).5 39 emphasize provision together use word binds specifically designated found. view, statute presumption granted, turn absent requisite finding justifications deferral exists. 40 argued parole-determination similar Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 2963, 41 935 (1974), credits inmates. arbitrary loss provided behavior. guarantees. argues response essentially factual, predictive. elected litigate federal court, courts' interpretation scope any, intended afford Bishop Wood, 426 341, 345, 2074, 2077, 48 684 can accept expectancy measure unique decided case-by-case basis. therefore circumstances. axiomatic "is flexible protections situation demands." 481, 2600; Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 (1961); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee McGrath, 341 123, 162163, 71 624, 643, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, concurring). function legal process, concept embodied Constitution, realm factfinding, erroneous decisions. Because broad spectrum concerns term apply, flexibility gear need; quantum quality depend purpose minimizing Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 335, 893, 903, 43 Here, previously, statue necessarily part part. Like most statutes, vests discretion No ideal, way make developed; whole continue experimentation analysis psychological combined evaluation guided practical actual decisionmakers predicting future Our federalism encourages experimentation. encumbered states regard burdensome unwarranted, abandon curtail Cf. Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., Tit. 34, §§ 1671-1679 (1964), repealed, 1975 Me.Acts, ch. 499, (repealing State's system). overlook component long-range objective rehabilitation. anticipations hopes programs fallen far expectations generation ago those objectives; adopt balanced approach making determinations, problems administering systems. rehabilitating persons useful, society remain goal matter how disappointing progress. contribute desirable objectives invite encourage continuing relations Procedures elicit facts, Gagnon, appropriate determination. Curators, Univ. Missouri Horowitz, 90, 948, 955, 55 124 1748. Merely exists mean addition panoply convict confine repeated, confinement. additional 46 particularly challenged Board:6 requirement cases D. Stanley, Prisoners Among Us defers does ready consideration shows up sentence, including offense behavior during sense reflects degree prepared adjust thereby effective opportunity, first, records relating case; second, considerations demonstrating files, process.7 Richardson Perales, 402 389, 408, 91 1420, 1430, 842 (1971). Next, find evolved communicates reason guide banc). require authority summary tend convert proceeding equate guilt contemplates, earlier, experienced prediction host variables. Dawson, Decision Grant Deny Parole: Study Criteria Law Practice, 1966 Wash.U.L.Q. 243, 299-300. much sentencing judge's choice—provided states—to following guilt, never thought now Dorszynski 424, 3042, 855 (1974). heard, Constitution more. Accordingly, case further proceedings consistent opinion.8 So ordered. APPENDIX TO OPINION THE COURT 51 account deciding following: 52 offender's personality, maturity, stability, responsibility apparent development personality hinder conformity 53 adequacy plan; 54 ability readiness assume obligations undertake responsibilities; intelligence training; status relatives display him close constructive associations community; 57 (f) employment history, occupational skills, stability past employment; (g) residence, neighborhood community plans live; 59 (h) narcotics, habitual excessive alcohol; (i) mental physical makeup, disability handicap affect 61 (j) prior recency frequency previous offenses; 62 (k) attitude toward law authority; 63 (l conduct facility, taken advantage opportunities self-improvement, punished misconduct six months reconsideration reductions forfeited, restored reconsideration; 64 (m) experience; (n) Any relevant. 83-1,114(2) 65 POWELL, concurring dissenting 66 I agree believe, applicability wording governing deliberations board, limited 67 restraint regarding probation. Although limitations imposed citizens enjoys incomparably whatever minimal retained walls, 68 enables wide range things open crime. . Subject life. Though properly subjects restrictions applicable citizens, condition different prison." 69 Liberty bodily core governmental action. Ingraham Wright, 430 651, 673-674, 1401, 1413-1414, 711 (1977); 572, 2706, fundamental valuable" "its inflicts 'grievous loss' parolee," revoke Similarly (1973), probationer about continuation And rescind prisoner's "good-time credits," directly reached compliance 70 principle, seems me agencies issue cases. adopts eligibility, prisoners justifiably expect fairly according met. states, exist, standard Contrary Court's conclusion, ante, 9-11, am convinced presence sufficient create today, "are different," " 'there wants,' 9,10. unpersuaded difference, indeed all, significant implies. Release marks severe regimen lifted, molded securing earliest law. Thus, prisoner later, generally unanticipated, reactions dispositive. From sentenced expects meets eligibility system. even disappointment granted. 72 unconvinced suggestion rights context "nature case." Ante, 9. inquiries: ascertain related returned random fashion, success addition, systematic inquiries relevant existing systems, too slight bear existence Clause. might relevant, course, determining setting. 73 correctly concludes, my erred ordering 14-16. afforded comports generously report adequate. 74 agree, scheduled (as opposed hearings) 6. procedures, told held, notified date until morning occur. although allowed "present counsel," 5, nullified completely refusal give hours advance. 75 asserts "[t]here timing seriously prejudices prepare hearing." original complaint cited alleged failure "inform [respondents] Parole." ordered petitioners hearings, affirmed order. supported arguing courts below determined current undermines Brief 65. accords common despite petitioners' comment seldom gone vacation conflicting appointments set." Petitioners 30. imposes burden State. three days' modify portion remand. 76 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN STEVENS join, 77 My disagreement extends delineation proceedings. ultimately "expectation parole," nonetheless rejects offenders establishes gratuitous commentary misapplication our unduly narrow Amendment. chooses address issue, register potentially without implements 78 already due. departs adopted disregards militate supplement dates considered, essential 79 80 self-evident individuals possess restraint. Upon conviction authorized penal statutes.1 enacts incarceration satisfaction conditions, qualifies deprivation. judgment, allows retain freedoms available outside prison.2 implicate observed, irrespective statute. fully remaining incarceration. Writing stated "on 'condemned suffer grievous loss,' citing 168, 646, concurring), interest." assessing caused proposition "to crime." 2600.3 terminated Nowhere intimate weight terms disregarded language.4 Rather, derived solely sentences 82 approach. There, abrogation implicates subsequently obtaining obligated credit creating shortened sentence accumulation behavior," id., 557, 2975, "serious misbehavior." implementing see 555-558, 2974-2976, applying consistently recognized.5 83 comparable interests Wolff. discerns distinctions "parole revocation," refuses follow here. proffered departure precedent. 84 finds dimension Ibid. obviously established inquiry. Whether bearing possesses liberty. acknowledged though forfeiture expected sometime hence. Drayton McCall, 584 1208, 1219 1978). contexts well, repeatedly protects enjoy.6 85 equally unrelated affected virtue system's existence. basis, recognition parolee's includes "many values unqualified 2601. presently seeking recognized, "[w]hether immediate stakes same: versus incarceration." Chairman 928, moot sub nom. Regan Johnson, 419 1015, 488, 289 86 justification distinguishing majority apparently believes somehow diminished "subjective evaluations." Yet nowhere explains decisional slightest terminate.7 reasoning flatly inconsistent subsequent part." 2107. For "only [denying are] predictive," 12, merit 87 assuming general, distinguish processes granting revoking 477-480, 2598-2600; 781-782, 1759-1760. assertion predominantly 'retrospective question,' characterized. "determined violate [of a] arise[s]: steps protect improve chances rehabilitation? relatively simple; complex. application expertise live committing antisocial acts. [T]his step, identified, discretionary." 2599-2600 (emphasis added). 89 clear decisive component. hinge assessments predicated findings fact.8 untenable Morrissey. C 90 "no obtained," 11, rise appears somewhat gratuitous, generate "legitimate [parole] release" 12. unclear endeavor arising jurisdictions embody Model Code, patterned, release.9 Furthermore, role assumed believe misapplies test, 11-12, refusing acknowledge observed : "During years, practice releasing end integral penological Rather ad hoc exercise clemency, variation imprisonment criminals." 477, 2598. belies majority's assumptions concerning expectations, significantly different.10 Government statistics reveal one-third first-time release.11 88% judges responding recent survey availability imposing 47% defendants serving sentences.12 accord views, Administrative Conference advised Congress anticipating "that demonstrates anything approaching maximum."13 discussing proposed revision Criminal S.1437, Senate Judiciary observed: "A judge today years impose vicinity ten knowing third sentence." S.Rep.No.95-605, p. 1169 (1977). led legislators paroled expire. Insofar analysis, understanding certainly justify Hence, unrealistic speculate hope" 11. subscribe safeguard purports Brewer test enunciated fundamentally deficient respects. begin with, focuses almost exclusively likelihood reduce advances dictates process: "First, official action; used, probable value, substitute safeguards; finally, Government's fiscal burdens entail." 903. 100 By ignoring Mathews, skews favor example, identify list considered. Nor demonstrate brief justifying sure, measures cause inconvenience, "the recognizes higher speed efficiency." Stanley Illinois, 405 645, 656, 1215, 551 (1972); accord, Frontiero Richardson, 677, 690, 1764, 1772, 583 Bell Burson, 535, 540-541, 1586, 1589-1591, lacking Certainly magnitude due.14 101 flaw incorrectly evaluates factor discussed. contribution accurate procedures. 334-335, 343-347, 902-903, 907-909. supplemental inappropriate assumes files contain incorrect information assumption, none. fact, researchers discovered inaccuracies instant revealed errors.15 Both margin Particularly tie number highly inquiries, 16-18, rejecting lower conclusion. 102 Finally, apart avoiding error, stressed adopting preserve appearance fairness confidence "fair treatment revocations chance arbitrariness," 2602 (citation omitted), shared legislators, courts, American Bar Association, commentators.16 Frankfurter 171-172, 649 (concurring opinion): 103 validity moral mode reached. Secrecy congenial truth-seeking self-righteousness gives slender assurance rightness. better instrument devised arriving truth jeopardy generating feeling, popular government, justice 104 appearance, existence, supports advise criteria applied, '[o]ne imagine cruel, inhuman, frustrating knowledge measured rules release.' Davis, Discretionary Justice: Preliminary Inquiry 132 (1969). 105 Applying protection requires. addressed posture case.17 issues 106 close, conducts limited, supporting 107 directed soon negligible, court thereafter. 1285 (CA8 standpoint, relief offers appreciable gain little insufficient point beneficial impact. inmates' modification slight.18 substantial. combining sufficient. 108 warranted notices next hour Instead, check day. expressly listing permissible quoted 16-18. 109 Finding insufficient, along consider. 1285.19 institute id. 1283, sets aside ground substance plainly contended throughout litigation enable organize notify participate 65-66; Answer Appellee 77-1889 (CA8), pp. 6, 8-9, 25, 28; Trial Civ. 72-L-335 (Neb.), 17-18; agreed. 1283; Mem. Op. (Neb., Oct. 21, App. Pet. Cert. 39, 45-47. Given stake, preserving fairness, depart longstanding adequate Memphis Light, Gas Water Division Craft, 436 1, 13, 1554, 1562, Mullane Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 306, 314, 652, 657, 865 (1950), principle heretofore context. 563-564, 2978-2979; 786, 1761; 486-487, 489, 2602-2603, 2604. 110 relies parole.20 present, uses letter noting furnish denial, 'detailed required.' 1284. render unfavorable guilt. 111 Mathews. disclosing adversarial, reasons.21 resemble concealing failings purportedly guilty. 112 requiring summation entail neither 2604; nor 563, 564-565, 2978, 2978-2979, justified 113 "burdensome Whenever scarcely crippled communicated government's action." 591, 2716, (1972) (MARSHALL, 114 345-346, 907-908; SEC Chenery Corp., 318 80, 454, 626 (1943). inability suggests arbitrary.22 115 identified Such direct focus careful detect impact.23 obligation publicly assurance, capricious. imposition instruction needed prospects consequence surely rehabilitative goals.24 Balancing procedure, meaningful explanation release.25 116 depreciates sanctions rudimentary respectfully dissent. defines "Such circumstances presentence investigation report, social history conduct, employment, commitment, reports examinations made. progress ." 83-192(9) Apparently, over 23-month period, eight denial. representative testified trial departures practice. indicate received requested challenge produced relief. 25-1901, seq. These advanced adoption von Hirsch Hanrahan, Abolish Parole? N. Morris, Future Imprisonment (1974); J. Wilson, Thinking About Crime 171 (1975); 59, 249. supra 3, 50-55; 287-288. explicit catchall 83-1,114(2)(a)-(n) Appendix opinion. objects Appeals' allowing secure statements; posts time. possible inaccurate. "[w]henever facilitate 83-1,112(1) Apparently satisfied administered us access files. permit complied litigation, seek parts us. witnesses. taping declared Those express them. cannot, terminate interests. 555-556, 2974-2975, Procunier Navarette, 434 555, 855, Bounds Smith, 1491, Pell Procunier, 417 822, 2800, 2804, 495 Cruz Beto, 263 Wilwording Swenson, 404 249, 407, (1971); Cooper Pate, 378 546, 1733, 1030 (1964); Ex parte Hull, 312 640, 1034 (1941); Weems 217 349, 544, 793 (1910). Carmona Ward, 1091, 874, (1979) Wolfish, 441 520, 568-571, 1861, 1889-1891, 447 580-584, 1895-1898 (STEVENS, Leis Flynt, 438, 448-453, 698, 703-706, 717 230, 2541, (1976) cf. 535-536, 545, 1872, 1877. Smith Organization Foster Families, 431 816, 842-847, 2094, 2109-2112, parolees' enjoyment restrictions, characterized "conditional." 480, status, diminish significance anticipates abrogated proper So, too, forfeit opinion, '[a]ll subject, time, custody .' 493 2, 2606 (Douglas, part). revocation. language, status. ignored pertinent language. Baxter Palmigiano, 323-324, 1551, 1560, 810 Lower understood revoked, focused various provisions. See, 788-790, 800-801 (CA4) Larkins Oswald, 510 1975); Gomes Travisono, 537 (CA1 1974); Willis Ciccone, 506 1011, 1017 Workman Mitchell, 502 1201 (CA9 1974). Miller Twomey, 479 701, 712-713 1973) (Stevens, J.), Gutierrez Department Public Safety Ill., 1146, 900, signals basic principles transfers institutions, rested absence limitation 225-228, 2538-2540. Tracy Salamack, 572 393, 395 1978); Four Certain Unnamed Hall, 550 1291, 1292 1977). Willner Character Fitness, 373 96, 1175, 224 (1963); Speiser Randall, 357 513, 1332, 1460 (1958); Konigsberg Bar, 353 252, 722, (1957); Schware Examiners, 232, 752, 796 Simmons 348 397, 453 (1955); Goldsmith Tax 270 117, 494 (1926). attempt differentiate enjoyed termination, proceeding, "nothing reincarnation right-privilege dichotomy not-too-deceptive disguise." 927-928, construing quotes 10; Comment, System, 120 282, 363 "license procedure" confer "substantial discretion" considerations. Kent 383 541, 553, 1045, 1053, (1966); Thorpe Housing Authority City Durham, 386 670, 678, 1244, 1248, 394 (1967) 791; 248-285; 2599-2600. particular, provision, enumerates intelligence, standards, applied Jerome Frank Legal Services Amici Curiae 30-31, 23a-26a. presumably source expectations" Expectations shaped jurisdiction's infra, 30-31. similar. among jurisdictions, variations "may" "shall," negate enumerated 75.4% 1972. 928. studies show method approximately 70% community. Uniform Reports, States: 1976 1977, (1978). figure high 97%. Kastenmeier Eglit, Decision-Making: Rehabilitation, Expertise, Demise Mythology, Am.U.L.Rev. 481-482 Addonizio, O.T. 1978, 78-156, 47. Project, Decisionmaking Sentencing Yale L.J. 810, 882 361 H.R.1598 Identical Bills Subcommittee Courts, Civil Liberties, Administration House Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 163-164, 193 (1973) (testimony Antonin Scalia, States). severity deserves weigh Goss Lopez, 565, 575-576, 729, 736-737, 725 notifying indicated believed enlist self-improvement program participating available. Tr. 38-39. errors unusual. E. Kohlman Norton, 380 F.Supp. 1073 (D.Conn.1974) (parole erroneously applicant gun robbery); Leonard Mississippi Probation 699 (ND Miss.1974), rev'd, 509 820 423 998, 428, (1975) (prisoner illegal disciplinary action); re Rodriguez, Cal.3d 639, 122 Cal.Rptr. 552, P.2d 384 (factually material officers violent tendencies "family reject[ed] him"); Pohlabel, N.J.Super. 242, 160 A.2d 647 (1960) (files showed jurisdiction); H.R. 13118 Committee, 92d 2d pt. VII-A, Dr. Willard Gaylin: "I seen black men listed white Harvard graduates borderline IQ's"); S. Singer Gottfredson, Development Data Base Decision-Making 2-5 (NCCD Research Center, Supp. Report (information FBI lists charge seven times showing disposition). S.Rep. 94-369, ("It essential, then, all. maintenance integrity institutions"); 928; Phillips Williams, 490 (Okl.1978), pending, 78-1282; ABA, Standards Relating Status (Tent.Draft Am.Crim.L.Rev. 377, 598 126-133 (1969); Official Special Commission Attica 97, (Bantam ed. 1972). accordance 8, provides. permitting failed compelled. inaccuracies. 7. Nevertheless, demands. cases, decisions, reduces reasons, decreases hours' ordinarily appearances. 1283. sufficiently post public areas institution. Every writing banc); Childs 167 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 511 1270 925 (CA2), parties Shields request 787, 797, Fourth issue. supplemented "essential inferences based." 934. description facts. 804; U.S.App.D.C., 279-282, 1281-1284, aff'g 371 1246, 1247 supposition 2979, perceive "prospect disruption flow statements." Hirschkop Millemann, Unconstitutionality Prison Life, Va.L.Rev. 795, 811-812, 839 preprinted unlikely disclose errors. Out 375 6-month 285 was: "Your vocational, educational, job assignment your 40-42. forms "[r]ecommendations correcting deficiencies," "[e]xhibit maturity," items checked 370 forms, 42; 38-39, 45-46. 20, supra; Candarini Attorney General 369 1132, 1137 (EDNY Monks Jersey N.J. 238, 277 193, 199 M. Frankel, Sentences 40-41 302; St. Mary's 478, 487 rendered

Category: 3