P/HE7HEA Co*lSTl7UTl*riM- &AFE6fVA&OS SAP PoEPk
GUZBhlhtQlTZ. I/.1JMA7EA Of Jp£P4SfA PBjAL CMEoT/°J#L_
CjMPL bK, iHZ am) PtZZE AAT/Sf/zd Hyf&J'PMSo' '
aPflClAL-P. AP-&iPAAP.Py fPPfjEA p£7' TlOAjffi JkE
oppopprutsirry t-j &e heap A at a+j el/6/P le papule
-HEAEjfhy 7

fj^Ks of 5b&a*ska />e*jAL
Cofi*?c-r,ou«i_ co^lek Nyf f"le<sl47TAsii-nry
Opp/OiAEL 6EPP/AE6 p(W Op A pAEoc^ o ^ /J
flEAEl/Oe, 7

Nhetmep PErmotjaP Ja6 a ubeapy xjTezest
ppoJEcpzb &Y ~FH£ NP/f AMEJhMEAfTpAPLotE jEAPi'Pb AE SETEOfiPM/tj PAP-OLZ E>7ATF<4TZ
PEa/AL CoLE S£C7E>fJ 3opl 7

Whether petitioner was afforded minimal due process protections as set forth in Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) when prison officials deprived him of a parole eligibility hearing