With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Beyer did not follow an instruction to contact that office. Beyer disputes this characterization and states that he was never permitted to present evidence on this issue to the circuit court. 25 State v. Woods, 117 Wis. 2d 701, 715, 345 N.W.2d 457 (1984). 26 Determining what process is due in any particular case begins with an analysis of the government function involved and the private interest affected by the governmental action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 560 (1974) (considering due process rights of prisoners at prison disciplinary proceedings); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972) (requiring hearings prior to parole revocation). 27 A court balances the following factors: [F]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; seco 105 (1995) (<HOLDING>); cf. Addington, 441 U.S. at 426 ("[T]he State

A: holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause
B: holding that respondent cannot obtain release through an asapplied challenge to the washington act on double jeopardy and ex post facto grounds and finding an asapplied analysis to be unworkable in that context because sueh an analysis would never conclusively resolve whether a particular scheme is punitive and would thereby prevent a final determination of the schemes validity under the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses
C: holding that retroactive application of ohios residency restriction statute violates the federal ex post facto clause
D: holding that ch 980 is not a punitive statute and violates neither the ex post facto nor double jeopardy clauses of the wisconsin and united states constitutions
D.