interest such that it would merit constitutional protection. 461 U.S. at 250, 103 S.Ct. 1741. Thus, I concur with the result and holding in this case that New Mexico did not create a liberty interest here because the state did not mandate a given result as a consequence of the state’s failure to comply with the notice requirement. I concur only because of my disagreement with the example proffered in dicta in a paragraph near the end of the majority opinion. 1 . In contrast, if the state "statute grant[ed] the parole board complete discretion in making parole decisions, [the statute would not] create a liberty interest.” Wood v. Utah Bd. Of Pardons & Parole, 375 Fed.Appx. 871, 874 n. 3 (10th Cir.2010) (unpublished) (internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 874
holding that revocation of parole does not impinge upon absolute liberty but only on the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole restrictions holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole holding that texas parole statutes do not create a protected liberty interest under an older statutory scheme 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