marks omitted). A prison inmate is now required to meet a two-part test to establish the existence of a liberty interest arising under a state statute or regulation: the inmate must establish that his confinement or restraint.(1) creates an “atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. at 2300, and (2). that “the state has granted its inmates, by regulation or by statute, a protected liberty interest in remaining free from that confinement or restraint,” Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 317 (2d Cir.1996). The standard articulated in Sandin applies retroactively to govern our review of Arce’s claims. See Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 2517, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (<HOLDING>). We review de novo the district court’s grant
holding that new rules of law apply to pending civil cases on direct appeal regardless of whether events predate announcement of rule holding that the definition of assessed is a federal question not a state law question while maryland law establishes certain events with respect to the imposition of a tax federal law determines whether those events constitute an assessment holding that the donovan rule applies regardless of whether the injunction is issued before or after the federal court filing holding lopez must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events regardless of whether such events predate or postdate the announcement of the rule citing harper v va dept of taxation 509 us 86 97 113 sct 2510 125 led2d 74 1993 holding that when the supreme court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule