Cited by

-36 (Minn. App. 2014), we noted that “ the criteria for a provisional discharge are more lenient than the criteria for a discharge” and concluded that because the petitioner failed to produce evidence sufficient to suppor t a provisional discharge, a discharge was inappropriate.

This court applies a clear-error stan dard of review to the panel ’s decision, “examin[ing] the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

We review judicial appeal panel decisions “for clear error, examin[ing] the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings and not weigh[ing] the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.” (quotations omitted).

P. 41.02(b), the appropriate standard of appellate review is de novo.”

P. 41.02(b), the standard of appellate review is de novo.” -33 (Minn. App. 2014).

P. 41.02(b), the standard of review is de novo.” -33 (Minn. App. 2014).

“Generally, this court reviews decisions by a judicial appeal panel for clear error, examin[ing] the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panel’s findings and not weigh[ing] the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.” (alteration in original) (quotations omitted).

This burden is the burden of production, which is satisfied with “‘sufficient, competent evidence that, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief.’” (quoting Coker, d 4 at 486).