1). Was petitioner written a Califia hcale Appralablly
Lo Meni Mthethsr Lhe EE ee don
REFUSED fo Conatrue 02 anabyge Led of une 11, 1185,
Li" Lag, RS, Ch, 315 un determining the validly x
fea Douche pependy Yolelion Lam whin thus lef Was
Conduct lime P

2). Ded the admumatiatow of 10.0.5, yotale the Daub
Peopandy Laue Lsten Ug fisfled the good cordic?
Lime petilaonen had Larne (pcrbuant Ko Sef of June 17
1983, 08" ig, AS, Ch, 805, pon pevocatien of hiv
prot 7

3), Dud the admumstratorr of 7.0.07 vurteles Texas Maw
When they BEEUSED fo Crrckt good conduct lime Larned
pursuant lo Betap Yume 19 11865, b8 beg, BS, Gh. 328,

Zowand dicted Pa, puscnanes Aenlente, ?

4), Did. the Judges of the Court of Appeal wr than. Chay

Jtlud on Sechin 4 of Let of Jum 10,1977, 65"hg.
BS, Ch. Z47 1 deny petlionet a Cbificale of Lp poalabibdly when thet provistin had ben fuptaled
by Lraphecatien pursuant to the snactment of Leelaf!
fur Ly 1143, $8 chg Ab, Op BOE, on (008 P

Whether the administrator of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when they forfeited the petitioner's earned good conduct time upon revocation of parole