or substitute procedural requirement would entail,” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, it seems certain enough that providing every employee of a university an opportunity to meet with the ultimate decision-maker when their termination is the result of a budget crisis would produce a serious administrative, if not fiscal, burden. See Babin, 587 Fed.Appx. at 111 (“Requiring that, in a layoff situation, each laid off employee be afforded an opportunity to meet with the final decision maker and dispute his selection for the layoff, the policies underlying the layoff, and the evidence and research underlying those policies, would be burdensome in the extreme, and it is difficult to see here what additional value such a meeting would bring.”); cf. Sys. Contractors, 148 F.3d at 576 (<HOLDING>). The process provided to Jones met
holding that a public entitys failure to provide a transcript of hearing proceedings would not lessen the probability of an erroneous deprivation because the bulk of the evidence in this case is documentary evidence holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that objective facts of this case certainly justified the officers in concluding that there was a fair probability that evidence of a burglary would be found in the car holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because appellate counsels failure to raise an evidentiary issue would not have altered the result of the proceedings because the erroneous admission of evidence would have constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the prejudice prong in strickland was not satisfied because counsels failure to raise an evidentiary issue would not have altered the result of the proceedings because the erroneous admission of the evidence would have constituted harmless error