In In re Reed (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1071, during his 20 years of incarceration Reed had received 11 reports of serious misconduct and 19 counseling chronos. (Id. at p. 1077.) As a result, at a 2005 parole hearing, the Board directed Reed to "'remain disciplinary free, not even a 128.'" (Id. at p. 1084.) Before the 2006 parole hearing, Reed received a counseling chrono for leaving work early. At the hearing, the Board relied on that instance of minor misconduct to deny parole. (Id. at p. 1085.) In affirming the denial, the court reasoned that Reed's most recent misconduct, when considered in the context of his history of institutional misconduct, demonstrated that Reed posed a current risk to society if released: "First, the misconduct violated a specific directive from the Board, given only two months before. Second, it occurred close in time to the Board's decision in 2006 to deny parole; that is, the incident was not stale. Finally, it was not an isolated incident; instead, it was part of an extensive history of institutional misconduct, including 11 CDC 115's and 19 CDC 128-A's. In evaluating the significance of the April 2005 CDC 128-A as an indicator of his ability, postrelease, to obey the criminal law and the conditions of his parole, the Board appropriately considered this history of misbehavior." (Id. at p. 1085.)