Denny Chin, of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of New * York, sitting by

desig nation. 07-5393-pr Connelly v. Lantz

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERA L RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 17 day

of F ebrua

ry , two thousand ten. th PRES ENT: Rosemary S. Pool er, Debr a Ann L ivingston, Circuit Judges , Denny Chin, * District Judge.

____________________________________________________________ Willi am Co nn e lly

, Plain tif

f- Ap pe lla nt,
-v.- 07-5393-pr T h e r e s a L an tz , Defendant- Appellee
.

___________________________________________________________ FOR APPEL L ANT: Wil liam Connelly , pr o s e , E nf ie ld, Conne c tic ut.FOR APPEL L EE: Steven R. Strom, Assis tant Attorney Gene ral, Ha

rtford, Conne c tic ut.
UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , AND DECREED that th e dis tr ic t c ourt jud g me nt i s AF F IRM ED
. Plaintiff-Appellant Willi am Connelly , pr o s e , appea ls from the Nove mber 6, 2007 judgme nt of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ( Hall, J. ) g rantingthe Appellee ’s motion for summary judgme nt. We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underlying f

acts a nd the proc edura l history

of the c ase. Th is C ourt

re vie ws an o rd e r gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo and foc uses on whethe r the district court prope rly conclude d that there wer e no g enuine issues a s to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Se e Mi lle r v . W

olp off & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003). In deter mining whe ther ther e ar e g enuine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f

a c t, w e are “ re qu ir e d to re so lve a ll ambi g uit ie s a nd dr aw a ll p e rm iss ibl e fac tual infere nces in fa

vor of the pa

rty ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt is sought.” Terry v. As hc ro ft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 ( 2d Cir. 2003) (interna l quotations omi tted). Af t er h av i n g re v i ew edC o n n el l y ’s co n t en t i o n s o nap p ea l an d th e r ec o rdo f p ro ce ed i n gs b el o w, we af

fi rm fo r s u

b s t an t i al l y

t h e s am e r ea s o n s s t at edb y th e d i s tri ct co urt i ni t s th o ro u gh opinion. W e agree with the district court that, viewingthe statutory chang es as a

whole, Connelly has fa iled to demonstrate a constitutional viol ation. Se e Un ite d S tates v . R ug

gie ro , 100 F.3d 284, 293 ( 2d Cir. 1996) (findingthat “[i] n assessingwhether a sente ncingprovision violates the ex post facto clause , a cour t must compare the two statutory scheme s as a whole , rathe r than
eac h provision”). Additionally , we f ind no merit to Connelly ’s ar g ument that the district courtSA O-RH

err ed by failing to consider whe ther c hang es in the De partment of Corr ection’s guidelines vio late d h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts , a s h e did no t r a ise thi s c la im i n h is c omp la int and , in any e ve nt, the e xpo st f ac to clause does not apply to the Depa

rtment’s guidelines or administrative direc tives. Se e Ba rn a v . Trav is , 2 39 F .3 d 1 69 , 1 71 (2 d Ci r. 20 01 ) ( fi nd ingthat “ Ex Po st F ac to Clause does not apply

to guide lines that do not crea te mandator

y rules for rele ase but a

re promulg ated simply

to guide the par ole boar d in the exercise of its discretion”); DiNapoli v. N.E. Reg’l Parole Comm ’n , 7 64 F .2 d 1 43 , 1 47 (2 d Ci r. 19 85 ) ( fi nd ingthat “ fe de ra l pa ro le g uid e lin e s .
. . are not ‘laws’ w ithin the meaning of the ex post facto clause ”). We have c onsidered a ll of Connelly ’s ar g uments and find them to be without merit. Ac c or din g ly , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk