timing of subsequent parole hearings, while having no effect on the inmate’s initial parole suitability hearing or on the standards used in considering whether an inmate is suitable for parole. Moreover, as with the 1981 amendment, annual parole suitability hearings remain the default under the 1994 amendment, and the Board is required to make particularized findings when determining the subsequent parole hearings will be more than a year later. Morales, 514 U.S. at 511, 115 S.Ct. at 1604. Since the Board “retains the authority to tailor the frequency of subsequent suitability hearings to the particular circumstances of the individual prisoner!,]” there has been no ex post facto violation. Id. at 509, 115 S.Ct. at 1602-05; see also Johnson v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 964, 967-68 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1242, 117 S.Ct. 1848,
holding that the federal parole guidelines at issue were not laws within meaning of ex post facto clause holding that a change in parole policies without altering the underlying substantive standards does not violate the ex post facto clause holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause holding change in ultimate parole decisionmaker from board to governor does not violate ex post facto clause holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause