Whether the sex offender classification policies as applied to Petitioner, convicted of a non-sexual offense, violate substantive due process

No question identified. : YS Deeg equating Tomes, a patent,conwlicteo 0 Kictongting tis OOD Lisle ea Cnilo, Lowere thete vos mae Ny Serum Motivation be be classitien ada ‘sey Henoer! pursuant To Mn gus-23-32, bear A Reasonable ano Artional Pelakionsriy to a leatimnte _gpvetnsnensto puspese& BA Wieder Substatwie Que partess can invaliomte Sey cenoce classhertou . paliches ‘as-agplied Lo Prredts, Convickeo ot Revi Veit won) bichagea CHNe, Uonere there LRS absolukcly No Sexual Motivations the Wlense@ D\ iether “THodaas HAs & fad Wnoet THE EGual Fotechons Cause to Have Hig sentence Computes IN The SAME MANAIEA, As Similoady Sttuates feisouess, Copvictes SF “KOweing ot Minor’ unos Meas 41-3-¢3 ¢ S\ Usnether the dial Courk “baeacnies The plea Aareeneot? by sentencing Tans at Kinga PURUAE +o Keng 4S-33-93L)L) , & Now gusitive Casal Reg akony stitute ¢ 3 | List of Patties Oe ¥ ML ?P ackies APPEAR 1s the Caption ot the Case on the COVER (age . Reuater Cases a SE © “Thomas v. Miss. Dept. ot Connections , 246 5.4.18 (acit) e Motnn FoR “Juoiied Reviers us She Maas adh Coan Geet Couet —i— . “TABLE Oe ey Pa ¢ Now TROLE OF Qu thonities VeVi Ofinions Bebow Tarisoichions a Conshiubonel, AND PtAbotDRy Protisionss Trvelveo » STatenenst ot He Case lg Rergonig For Granbury THe Wait ey Qowclusiod — “Live To Appenoices Nepersony As Decision ot Yhe WS. Court oF Ayrerds ZEA Cet eepenon bs Decisions ok dhe US, orstiick Court, Nedheos Orstuck ok Mississ pet Fusasinas aN? KEcommenontions ot MagisteaTe Junge Notice submite ‘by Attoaney Gersciur| 2 Lysofitcn Agrenory Cs Denial st Motion for Leave To Phoceeo Te Foran Paupen's Kwed Tulynrenst ot US. oistaret Court, Notthean Disteick <> Mississi yet (\ enon. pt Decisions of THe Mississige? Sutene Couct —W— Fepe an\ Cases “