Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 506 F.3d 1211, 1237 (10th Cir.2007) (“[Defendant] has cited to no United States Supreme Court decisions, and our own independent research has failed to produce any, holding that a state court’s erroneous application of state criminal law can result in a violation of a criminal defendant’s equal protection rights.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2943, 171 L.Ed.2d 872 (2008). And any argument that the OCCA’s application of the Spuehler standard was an ex post facto violation, thereby implicating his due process rights, is unavailing. The decision in Easlick did not alter the definition of criminal conduct or change the punishment for any offenses. Thus, its application did not constitute an ex post facto violation. See Sallahdin v. Gibson, 275 F.3d 1211, 1228 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Second, Mr. Bates argues that the evidence 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation (B) holding that application of a judicial decision was not an ex post facto violation when the decision did not redefine any crimes defenses or punishments (C) holding that state work release regulation was not an ex post facto law (D) holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause (E) holding application of successor statute regarding registration of sexual predator was regulatory and not an ex post facto violation
Output (English): holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause