context: . We note that a defendant charged with violating a condition of supervised release has limited due process rights.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 732 F.3d 283, 291
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that "there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel at a parole revocation"
citation_a.sentence: See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (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”); see also United States v. Manuel, 732 F.3d 283, 291 (3d Cir.2013) (holding that "there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel at a parole revocation”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 408 U.S. 471, 480
citation_b.parenthetical: 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"
citation_b.sentence: See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (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”); see also United States v. Manuel, 732 F.3d 283, 291 (3d Cir.2013) (holding that "there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel at a parole revocation”).