Question One: Does the Federal time credit Statute 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)
use of the non-discretionary language that federal inmates
"Shall be given credit" create a liberty interest in
in sentencing credits? And if so is this "state-created"
liberty interest protected by the 5th Amendment due process
clause? As this court has decided in Board of Pardons V.
Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 LEd. 2d 303 (1987)
and Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct.
2100, 60 L.Ec1. 2d 668 (1979).

Question Two: Is the 5th Circuits holding that a person who is subject to
"detention orders" [18 U.S.C. §3142(e)] and "Sentencing
orders" [18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)] is not "official detention"
contrary to Supreme Court precedent and clearly established
law set forth in Reno v. Koray 515 U.S. 50,432 L.Ed. 2d.
46, 115 S.Ct. 2021 (1995).

Question Three: Does a person who was "released in error" into community
and living a lawful and law-abiding life for a number of years, -have a
right to procedural due process established in Morrissey v. Brewer 408 U.S.
at 477, 33 L.Ed. 2d. 484, 92 S.Ct. and YOUNG V. HARPER 520 U.S. 477 (1997)
entitling them to "some type of hearing" before reimprisonment? The D.C.
Court of appeals (see. Hurd v. Dist. of Columbia, D.C. Cir., No. 15-7153,
7/28/17) and the 5th Cir. in Semien v. United States No.17-40970 are in
conflict on this issue. Which court is correct?

Does the Federal time credit Statute 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) create a liberty interest protected by the 5th Amendment due process clause?