the district court observed, the Ex Post Facto Clause asks whether the USPC “applied the correct parole guidelines” and not whether the USPC correctly applied the parole guidelines. Bailey I, 945 F.Supp.2d at 64. The Ex Post Facto Clause constrains the government’s ability to use retroactive legal rules to justify criminal punishment. Where, as here, a prisoner believes the USPC has mis-applied a prospective legal rule, the Clause simply does not apply. Of course, this is not to say the prisoner has no legal recourse to challenge an alleged mis-application of law. Prisoners have avenues to challenge the unlawful denial of a request for parole— even where this denial does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See, e.g., Furnari v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 531 F.3d 241, 247-48 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Doe v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 602
holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole holding that the parole commission is required to state reasons for its finding that an inmate continues to be a poor candidate for parole release holding that an important part of due process in the context of parole revocation is a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole holding that in reviewing a uspc decision to deny parole on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus a federal court inquires into whether there is a rational basis in the record for the parole commissions conclusions embodied in its statement of reasons holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole