1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The First Circuit has held that an inmate has no liberty interest in continued participation in a work release program. Dominique v. Weld, 73 F.3d 1156, 1159-61 (1st Cir.1996). The Dominique court cited the standard set forth in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), where the Supreme e to the BOP policy reversal on the ground that he was unlawfully deprived of a liberty interest in community confinement. However, the law does recognize a due process right not to be sentenced on false information. Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 556, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); see also United States v. Montoya, 967 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rone, 743 F.2d 1169, 1171
holding that the petitioner could not show prejudice because the essence of the mitigation evidence that he argued was before the judge through the presentence investigation report and his mental health experts testimony and the judge referred to it specifically in the sentencing order further the same judge and the florida supreme court held that the mitigation evidence would not have changed the result recognizing that the accuracy of information before the sentencing judge bears on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule