With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. Gary Williams, an inmate serving a parole-eligible life sentence, appeals the denial of his petition for mandamus challenging a disciplinary report that resulted in him being placed in disciplinary confinement for 60 days. We treat the appeal as a petition invoking our certiorari jurisdiction, and deny the petition on the merits because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in determining that Williams failed to demonstrate any liberty interest implicating the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486-87, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (<HOLDING>). DENIED. DAVIS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ.,

A: holding that 30day disciplinary confinement did not present the type of atypical significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest and further stating that the chance that a finding of misconduct will alter the balance in consideration of parole is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the due process clause
B: holding that 30day segregated confinement in hawaii penitentiary did not present such atypical hardship so as to create liberty interest
C: recognizing that early release statutes can create a liberty interest protected by due process guarantees 
D: holding that the plaintiffs disciplinary segregated confinement for thirty days did not present the type of atypical significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest
A.