Whether prisoners have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole release under the 14th Amendment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (0) WHETHER THE MANDATORY LANUAGE ANO STRUCTURE OF TEXAS PAROLE STRWE ARTICLE 4218 BIS (f) TOGETHER WITH THE REQUISITE AND SPECIAL PARME ConDiTieNs OF THE PAROLE BoAarOS DECEMBER I, 2019 ORDER To GRANT FARE To ITS FREPAROLE FI-5 IN PRISON THERAPUETIC. CommuMITY TREATHIENT PROGRAM (APPENOIXD,| ) CAzATED AN “EXPECTANCY Fox RELEASE” A AIBERTY WIEREST PRoTECTED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14™ AMENDMENT U.S. Gonsig (2 WHETHER PRISONERS (ANO IF $C, To WHAT EXTENT) EMOYS A FEDERAL Cons7iTUTIONALLY PROTECTED DUE PRoceSS AIGHT wnDER THE He™ AméNvmenT Uw. S. — GonsT, TO NoT HAVE THEIR RELEASE To AAROLE DEMED/RESINaED BASED . on FALSE INFoRmATIONS (2) WHETHER PRISONERS PARTICIPATING IN TEXAS PRROLE BOARDS oRDEREO PRs PARE FI-5 |PTC TREATNEMT PROGKAMT HAUE A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ~ Due. ProceSS Agni UNDER THE 14 AmenomenT US. Conse To A PRocEOUeY HEARING BEFORE HE CR SHE CAN BE REMOVED From ir; (4) WHETHER PRiSomeKS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY PRoTECTEO Rider unoze THE IS? AmenomeNT To NoT Have His PRIOR UG, OSTRIGT CoursT$ LITIGATION Ach wity PLAY A SUBSTANTIAL PART IM THE PAROLE BonkoS DECISION Te DENy/ RESCIND FAROME RELEASE ; . (5) WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DISCRININATED AGAINST AS CompAREO 7 OTHER PRISONERS PARTIOOPATING in THE PRE PAROLE Fi-5 IPTC PROGRAMD BUT DIP NOT scéK ACtESS OF Tite CoUNRTS. IW VéLATION OF FE EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSE of WE HI" aménomenr US. CONST, Ano “ (G) WHETHER THE BISTRIETCOURT'S PBRESOLITIO 13 CONTRARY 7” CLEAKLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW ANO “eourRapieTg? 71d CIOVERNING LAWS SET FORTH WW) THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENTS ald PUINGS, \ ‘ .