Sergio M. Aguirre appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(c). We affirm. 1. The state court’s conclusion that the 2010 amendment to California Penal Code § 2933.6 does not violate the Ex Post Fac-to Clause was not contrary to clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Nevarez v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 1124, 1128-29 (9th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 2. Nor was the state court’s decision “based
holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause holding that state work release regulation was not an ex post facto law