Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): its commission.” O’Grady v. Libertyville, 304 F.3d 719, 723 (7th Cir.2002). The changes in Indiana’s parole procedures did not alter the statutory punishment for the crime (life in prison) or the standards for determining the initial date for parole consideration (after 20 years of serving time) or change the standards for determining a prisoner’s suitability, set out in Ind.Code § 11-13-3-3 and 220 Ind. Admin. Code 1.1-2-3. See Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 250, 120 S.Ct. 1362, 146 L.Ed.2d 236 (2000) (upholding Georgia administrative regulation changing frequency of parole hearings for prisoners serving life sentences from every three years to every eight years against ex post facto challenge); Cal. Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we have explicitly held that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant who received a suspended sentence of 157 days in jail was convicted of an offense punishable by more than oneyear of incarceration because california law provided for a sentence of up to three years imprisonment (B) holding that a statute imposing a one dollar court cost for law enforcement on every person convicted of a crime was not a violation of the separation of powers doctrine because it is reasonable that one convicted of a crime should be made to share in the improvement of agencies that society has had to employ in defense against the very acts for which he has been convicted (C) holding that there was no ex post facto violation when california changed frequency of reconsideration for parole from every year to up to every three years for prisoners convicted of more than one homicide (D) holding that the plaintiff could not assert a continuing violation when there was a three year gap in time from one allegation to the next (E) holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim
Output (English): holding that the plaintiff could not assert a continuing violation when there was a three year gap in time from one allegation to the next