sentence for a crime, the Supreme Court noted that a defendant may consider gain time or parole eligibility in deciding whether to enter a plea bargain. See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 32, 101 S.Ct. at 966 (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Warden, 417 U.S. at 658, 94 S.Ct. at 2535-36). An alien defendant, in addition to considering factors such as parole eligibility, would likely consider his or her eligibility to apply for a deportation waiver as well in deciding whether to plead or contest the charges. Just as the Supreme Court has found that “only an unusual prisoner could be expected to think that he was not suffering a penally when he was denied eligibility for parole,” Warden, 417 U.S. at 662, 94 S.Ct. at 2538, only an unus 952) (<HOLDING>); Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 39, 44 S.Ct. 283,
holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive holding that the ex post facto clause does not apply to deportation orders because deportation however severe its consequences has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure holding that because of its civil nature section 881 is not subject to the ex post facto clause holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation