evidence that he contended supported his claims that the PSI was inaccurate, but the Parole Board ignored his evidence and relied on the PSI in making its determination. Thus, Stockmeier asserted that the Parole Board knowingly relied on false information in violation of NRS Chapter 213, the Board’s operating policies, and the common law. Stockmeier asked the district court for injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the Parole Board from relying on the allegedly false information in his PSI. The Parole Board is required to adopt standards for determining whether to grant or deny parole. NRS 213.10885(1). Parole is an act of grace, however, and no one has a right to parole. NRS 213.10705; NRS 213.1099(1); see also Severance v. Armstrong, 96 Nev. 836, 839, 620 P.2d 369, 370 (1980) (<HOLDING>). In considering a prisoner’s eligibility for
holding that texas parole statutes do not create a protected liberty interest under an older statutory scheme recognizing that nevada statutes do  not confer a legitimate expectation of parole release and therefore do  not create a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest sufficient to invoke due process recognizing that early release statutes can create a liberty interest protected by due process guarantees  holding that state statutes which merely establish procedures and do not mandate any particular substantive result do not give rise to a statecreated liberty interest 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