discussed Cited "see, e.g." Martin v. Chandler (2×) See also Abed v. Commissioner of Correction, 43 Conn.App. 176 , 682 A.2d 558 (1996) (the same inmate raising the same argument with the same result), cert. denied 531 U.S. 897 , 121 S.Ct. 229 , 148 L.Ed.2d 164 (2000). [51] Wottlin v. Fleming, 136 F.3d 1032, 1037-8 (5th Cir.1998) ("Wottlin's eligibility for the early release program has always been subject to the discretion of the BOP. [The regulation] is merely a categorical determination by the BOP that it will not exercise that discretion in the case of inmates with a prior conviction for certain specified crimes."). [52] Conlogue v. Shinbau…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brian K. Ellis v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction This demonstrates that, at best, the effect of the repeal created “only the most speculative and attenuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment for covered crimes, and such conjectural effects are insufficient under any threshold we might establish under the Ex Post Facto Clause.” Morales, 514 U.S. at 509 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 ; see also Abed v. Armstrong, 209 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir.) (finding no ex post facto violation because “[ujnlike the statutes at issue in both Weaver and Lynce , [this statute] does not automatically confer the right to ea…