it was unnecessary to the outcome of the case. Id. at 507 n. 3, 115 S.Ct. 1597. Clarifying its precedent, the Supreme Court stated an ex post facto violation does not rest on an inmate’s lost opportunity to reduce prison time but, rather, only upon a finding that legislation retroactively modified the definition of or increased the penalty for an inmate’s crime: After Collins, the focus of the ex post facto inquiry is not on whether a legislative change produces some ambiguous sort of ‘disadvantage,’ nor ... on whether an amendment affects a prisoner’s ‘opportunity to take advantage of provisions for early release,’ but on whether any such change alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the. penalty by which a crime is punishable. Id. See also id. at 514, 115 S.Ct. 1597 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Supreme Court has never
holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause holding the application of change in law regarding the timetable for being eligible for parole board hearings was not an increase in punishment violative of the ex post facto clause holding change in ultimate parole decisionmaker from board to governor does not violate ex post facto clause holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation holding that a change in parole law violates the ex post facto clause if the change in the law created a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes