With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to any inmates. The practice between 1977 and 1982 was to interview subclass 2 members on a 7 + 3 + 3 schedule based on internal policy directives. 5 .The annual reinterview did not begin until after an inmate was eligible for parole, which occurred after 10 years of incarceration for members of subclass 2. See M.C.L. § 791.234. 6 . Therefore, beginning in 1982, retroactive application of M.C.L. §§ 791.234 and 791.244 established a 4 + 2 + 2, etc. hearing schedule for members of all plaintiff subclasses. 7 . It is well established that none of the class members have a cognizable liberty interest in the parole procedures, policies or laws that predated the 1992 amendments. See Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162 (6th Cir.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1118, 130 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1995) (<HOLDING>). 8 . See p. 6,

A: holding that international law provides substantive law for atca cases
B: holding that michigan law provides no substantive right to parole
C: holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania
D: recognizing that it is well established that where a state provides a discretionary parole regime prisoners do not have a liberty or property interest in parole
B.