more close procedural questions against criminal defendants, or prosecutors drive harder plea bargains, or the Parole Commission takes a more jaundiced view of applications for parole, the ex post facto prohibition is not violated, even though a criminal’s punishment may end up being longer 0 L.Ed.2d 122 (1998). Thus, it is clear that the application of the February 1998 Guidelines to this defendant did not violate the ex post facto clause of the Federal Constitution. Further, because our Supreme Court has interpreted the New Jersey Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws using the same principles as federal courts interpreting the Federal Constitution, we find no violation of the New Jersey Constitution. See Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 42-43, 662 A.2d 367 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. 1 The Attorney General directed
holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause 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 no reason has been advanced to date warranting an interpretation of new jerseys ex post facto clause differently from the federal constitution holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation holding that the federal parole guidelines at issue were not laws within meaning of ex post facto clause