ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before CHRISTIE, C.J., HORSEY, MOORE, WALSH and HOLLAND, JJ. (constituting the Court en banc).This 16th day of November, 1989, the Court has before it DiStefano and Stewart’s motions for reargument and, alternatively, for rehearing en banc. The motions state, inter alia, that the proper focus under an ex post facto analysis is whether a change in the law has “disadvantage[d] the offender affected by it.” Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. at 430, 107 S.Ct. at 2451 (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. at *829, 101 S.Ct. at 964). The validity of this proposition, as a component of a proper ex post facto analysis, was specifically recognized in footnote three of our opinion. Nevertheless, after a complete analysis, we concluded that DiStefano and Stewart have not been disadvantaged, in violation of the ex post facto prohibition, by the enactment of legislation which makes them generally ineligible for any furlough or work release program.
The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its rejection of “the notion ‘that any change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner involved is sufficient to invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause.’ ” Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1908, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989) (emphasis in original) (quoting Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976)). Similarly, the degree of disadvantage which DiStefano and Stewart must demonstrate to establish a violation of the ex post facto prohibition, requires a showing that the statute which has been enacted “makes more onerous the punishment for crimes commited before its enactment.” Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. at 435, 107 S.Ct. at 2454 (quoting Weaver, 450 U.S. at 36, 101 S.Ct. at 968). We remain convinced that DiStefano and Stewart have not sustained that burden.9
We find no merit in any of the other issues which are now raised by DiStefano and Stewart. Accordingly, the motions for reargument and rehearing en banc are DENIED.
. In footnote five, we noted that in Miller, the United States Supreme Court had invalidated judicially created sentencing guidelines. We are cognizant that a statute directed the promulgation of the guidelines by the Supreme Court of Florida, and that those guidelines only became effective after adoption by the Florida legislature. The issue before the United States Supreme Court was whether the revision of those guidelines, by a subsequently enacted Florida statute, violated the ex post facto prohibition. We remain convinced that the teaching of Miller is that an ex post facto violation can occur by virtue of the enactment of a statute or by the enactment of a regulation or guideline, pursuant to a statute.