Has the petitioner been validly sentenced under the Virginia statute on earned sentence credits?

question presented is has the Petitioner been validly sentenced under this statute, therefore being encompassed by this? 2) §53.1-202.2 Code of Virginia specifically stipulates that “every person who is convicted of a felony offense committed on or after January 1, 1995 and who is sentenced to; serve a term of incarceration in a state or local , : correctional facitity..." The-question presented by the Petitioner is is the Petitioner one of "every person who is convicted of a felony offense committed on or after January 1, 1995 and who is sertenced to serve a term of incarceration.."? _ 3) The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a state law may > create enforceable liberty interests in the prison setting. See: Board of Pardons v. Allen; Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates; :Wolffiv: McDonnell}: and Vitek v. Jones.(1) The question presented by the Petitioner is with the *: use of the explicitly mandatory term "shall" in §53.1-202.2 C.0.V., has a liberty interest been created pursuant to those standards? 4) According to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 41 L.Ed.2d 905, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974), "[t]he state having created the right to good time and itself recognized that its deprivation is a sanction for major misconduct, prisoner's . . interest has real substance and is sufficiently embraced within the Fourteenth Amendment." The question presented is with the use of explicitly mandatory language in the governing statute §53.1-202.2 C.0.V., has the state created a right to good time (earned sentence credits) that cannot be taken away without minimal due process, therefore sufficiently embracing the Petitioner's interest within the Fourteenth Amendment in accordance with the Wolff standard? We Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 96 L.Ed.2d 303, 107 S.Ct. 5 (1987) : Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed.2d 668, 99 8.Ct. 2100 (1979) Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 556-572, 41 L.Ed.2d 905, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974) Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. at 487-494, 63 L.Ed.2d 552, 100 S.Ct. 1254 (1980) ”. ii | a ;