PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

Under Texas law, a person who serves a month in prison has that month of "calendar time" credited toward his sentence. A person who serves a month on parole may likewise earn a month of "[s]treet-time credit," a form of calendar time which also counts toward a sentence.1 We consider whether, in Texas, a person convicted of aggravated rape who was paroled by mistake is entitled to street-time credit for the period between his release and the revocation of his release.

I.

Mandell Rhodes, Jr. was convicted of aggravated rape in 1980. Texas paroled him in 2004,2 but he returned to prison in 2006 after violating a condition of his release. Rhodes claims that he is being denied street-time credit for the two years that he was on parole, credit that he claims "could be used to accelerate his automatic release to mandatory supervision." According to Rhodes, Texas law requires that when an inmate is released in error through no fault of his own, he is entitled to be credited with all earned street-time credit upon his return to prison. The denial of such credit, he contends, is a denial of due process.

Rhodes sought habeas relief in federal district court.3 The district court denied his petition, for reasons that we will explain. Rhodes obtained a Certificate of Appealability (COA), which grants us jurisdiction to decide this appeal.4 Per the COA, we consider Rhodes's argument that his street time should have been restored because he was erroneously released to parole.

II.

Rhodes is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a Texas court. In the usual case, we could grant him federal habeas relief only if he cleared the hurdle of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). That provision ordinarily forecloses relief unless a state-court decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of Federal law," or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding."5 But it is of no moment whether Rhodes could overcome this deferential standard of review, for even were we to review afresh the decision of the district court, Rhodes's claim lacks merit.

III.

As relevant here, we may grant Rhodes's petition only if one of his constitutional rights has been violated.6 He contends that he was deprived of street-time credit without due process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rhodes cannot prevail on this argument unless he has a "liberty ... interest" in his claimed street-time credit;7 if he does not have a liberty interest in that street-time credit, he was due no more process than he received.8

Whether Rhodes has such a liberty interest turns on Texas state law.9 In 2001, we held in Thompson v. Cockrell that a Texas prisoner had a protected liberty interest in receiving credit for the time between his erroneous release from custody and the revocation of that release.10 We did so based in part on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals's (CCA's) decision in Ex parte Morris.11 In Morris, the CCA held that a prisoner was "entitled to be granted credit on his formal sentence for the calendar time when he was at liberty on parole."12 But as the district court recognized — and Rhodes conceded below — Morris is no longer good law.

In 2003, the CCA expressly overruled Morris (and similar cases) in Ex parte Hale.13 The CCA further explained that "[t]he law that should apply to [a person paroled in error] is ... the law that governs releasees."14 Accordingly, to determine whether Rhodes has a liberty interest in the street-time credit he demands, we must evaluate Texas's law of releasees.15

We turn to the law in effect when Texas revoked Rhodes's release.16 Because revocation occurred in 2006, Texas's "street-time credit statute," TEX. GOV'T CODE § 508.283, controls.17 Section 508.283(b) provides:

As emphasized above, § 508.283 excludes from street-time credit those persons described in § 508.149(a).19 According to the CCA, § 508.149(a) encompasses persons — like Rhodes — who have been convicted of aggravated rape.20 Thus, Rhodes cannot establish a violation of his right to due process because, as a person described by § 508.149(a), he is not entitled to street-time credit.

Rhodes disagrees. Citing § 508.283(b), he contends that Texas may not forfeit his earned street-time credit unless he was actually paroled. Rhodes was not lawfully on parole, he argues, because he never signed a valid parole contract. However, in light of Hale's direction that persons paroled in error be treated as though they were releasees for purposes of § 508.283, this argument lacks force.21

* * *

Rhodes is entitled to federal habeas relief only if he was deprived of street-time credit without due process. Because he had no protected liberty interest in the street-time credit that he claims to have accrued, his due-process right was not violated. We therefore AFFIRM the district court's denial of his habeas petition.22