who remain in denial of their offense, those who “refuse to participate or minimize with regard to their offense(s),” and those at the non-secure facility treatment phase who move toward relapse or otherwise become "at risk.” Id. § 446.13. The regulations also contain a sex offender "notice of release" provision, which is not at issue in this appeal. See id. § 446.14. 9 . Plaintiff's ex post facto claim is not barred by our above ruling that he lacks a protected liberty interest. As the Supreme Court has stated, "Evaluating whether a right has vested is important for claims under the Contracts or Due Process Clauses, which solely protect pre-existing entitlements.... The presence or absence of an affirmative, enforceable right is not relevant, however, to the ex post D.Md.1993) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, Briscoe v. Herndon, 56 F.3d 60, 1995
holding that work release and security classification regulations were not ex post facto laws holding that the federal parole guidelines at issue were not laws within meaning of ex post facto clause holding that state work release regulation was not an ex post facto law 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 the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation