1. Where the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (TBPP ) fail to
follow its own Rules & Guidelines, the Texas Constitution, and
the Adminstrative Procedures Act(APA); Can the TBPP promulgate
Rules and Regulations and arbitrarily and capriciously refuse to
follow them consistent with the due process clause, as set out by
this Court in WILKINSON v DOTSON, 125 S.Ct. 1242?

2. where the District Court and the Appeals Court fail to addr- .
ess an issue of First Impression(i.e .THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE
TEXAS CONSTITUTION, TEXAS STATUTES, THE AgA, AND TBPP'S OWN GUIDE
LINES COMBINE TO GIVE A LIBERTY INTEREST, OR IN THE LEAST A REA_
SONABLE EXPECTATION THAT PAROLE PROCEDURES WILL BE CONDUCTED WITH
A MODICUM OF JUST AND FAIT TREATMENT); Does this failure conflict
with the Fifth Circuit's holding in MYERS v KLEVENHAGEN, 97 F.3d,
91, where the Court held that prison officials failure to follow
the prison's own policies, procedures or regulations does not con
stitute a violation of due process, if constitutional minimas are
neverless met; and conflict with this Court's holding in WILKINSON
v AUSTIN, 545 U.S. 209, where it held that an intetrest may a-
rise from an expectation or interest .created by State Laws or
policies?

3. W here the District Court and the Appeals Court holding is in
conflict with the holding in the 9th Circuit in PEARSON v MUNTZ, *
639 F-§d 1185(2001) ;the 2nd Circuit in GRAZIAN v PATAKI, 2006 WL
2023082;with the understanding that this Court has NOT Explicedly
stated what the minimum process is in regards to the denial of
parole, Petitioner ask this Court to make a ruling that will put
all of the Circuits on the same page?

Whether the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles can arbitrarily refuse to follow its own rules and guidelines without violating due process rights