California courts reasonably concluded that imposition of statutorily mandated sex offender registration requirement that was not part of the criminal judgment did not violate Maciel’s right to due process. Maciel was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with force against a child and sentenced to 42 years and 4 months in prison. Although the criminal judgment did not include a parole term or a sex offender registration requirement, both were imposed when Maciel was released. He challenged them in the state courts with habeas petitions, claiming the requirements violated his right to due process because they were not part of the sentence, but relief was denied. In his federal habeas proceedings, the district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability solely on the parole claim. Because Maciel was discharged from parole by the time the claim was heard, it was moot. Nevertheless, the appellate court expanded the certificate to reach the registration requirement issue because Maciel made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As to the registration requirement, the federal court found that the case Maciel relied on, Hill v. U.S. ex rel. Wampler (1936) 298 U.S. 460, was distinguishable and the California courts were reasonable in denying Maciel’s claim based on it. Contrary to Wampler, Maciel’s claim involved the collateral consequences of his criminal conviction, not an illegitimate detention; the registration requirement was statutorily mandated and Wampler expressly applies only to discretionary relief; and the registration requirement serves a regulatory purpose rather than being punitive.