maintenance of his criminal record constitutes a deprivation of his protected liberty interest in pursuing his chosen profession. Additionally, the Defendant stresses his presentation of evidence indicating that he has been denied specific employment opportunities. The Court finds these distinctions unpersuasive for several reasons. First, in several of the cases mentioned above, the petitioners unsuccessfully argued that their criminal records foreclosed or impaired their pursuit of various career opportunities. Although those petitioners did not allege the deprivation of a liberty interest by name, they raised the same substantive argument that the Defendant now advances, namely interference with the pursuit of their chosen professions. See, e.g., Friesen, 853 F.2d at 816 (<HOLDING>); Scott, 793 F.2d at 118 (expungement order
holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion holding that expungement constituted an abuse of discretion even though an acquitted attorney alleged harm in terms of employment availability reputation in the community and possible denial of professional licensing holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion holding that denial of discovery in habeas proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion