Fassler

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence Fassler (“Fassler”) appeals the district court’s decision respecting his petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2241, and we review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a petition for habe-as corpus. Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount it here.

Parole revocation, unlike criminal prosecution, deprives an individual only of his or her “conditional” liberty. Nevertheless, because there is a liberty interest involved, some process is due under the due process clause of the Constitution. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482, 484-89 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Fassler complains that the Parole Commission’s delay in holding a hearing violated his right to due process. To establish such a due process violation, a parolee must establish first that the Commission delayed in holding a hearing, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) (stating that the length of the delay is the “triggering mechanism”), and, second, that the “commission’s…