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,
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 holding that international law provides substantive law for atca cases holding that michigan law provides no substantive right to parole holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole