Robert James, a federal inmate confined at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his confinement. The district court 1 dismissed the petition and James appealed. We ordered briefing on whether James should have received a hearing before revocation of his parole on a District of Columbia conviction, and whether the United States Parole Commission (USPC) applied the correct parole guidelines. After careful review of the record, we affirm.

We need not address the first issue because James acknowledges that he had a *184 parole revocation hearing. Further, the USPC correctly applied its guidelines, as the District of Columbia no longer had separate parole guidelines at the time of James’s revocation hearing. See D.C.Code Ann. § 24-131 (2001); Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners, 63 Fed.Reg. 39,172, 39,172 (July 21, 1998). As to James’s ex post facto claim, he failed to demonstrate that the parole guidelines that were applied to him created a sufficient risk of increasing the punishment attached to his original crimes. See Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 251,120 S.Ct. 1362, 146 L.Ed.2d 236 (2000); Cal. Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 508-09, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.