harsher than he hoped when he committed the crime. [Id. at 952.] [I]f the Justice Department issues guidelines for the enforcement of a federal statute that it administers (as it did in the 1984 Department of Justice Merger Guidelines, for example), this is the performance of an interpretive function that every law enforcement agency has; it is not the enactment of a law____ If the law is unchanged and no legislative regulations are promulgated, a mere change in enforcement methods, priorities, or policies, written or unwritten-a change within the scope of the executive branch’s discretion in enforcing the laws passed by Congress-does not activate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. [Id. at 954 (citations omitted).] See also, Shabazz v. Gabry, 123 F.3d 909, 916 (6th Cir.1997), (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1120, 118 S.Ct. 1061,
holding that an employee accepted as a matter of law changes to an employment agreement by continuing employment with the company after he received notice of the changes holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony of two witnesses that confirmed but did not elaborate upon the victims testimony would have had only minor impact on the jury because there was little to undermine the victims credibility recognizing impact of child support guidelines holding that no liberty interest was implicated where the public reason for employees dismissal was that their services did not meet the expectations of the public employer holding that changes in the administration and enforcement of statutes have little impact on  public expectations