Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that the respondent, who was no longer serving his state sentence of probation at the time he filed his federal habeas corpus petition and is only subject to the mandates of Pennsylvania's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), met the jurisdictional 'in custody' requirement for federal habeas review

QUESTION PRESENTED A prerequisite for judicial review of a federal habeas petition filed under section 2254 of Title 28 of the United States Code is that the petitioner is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (extending writ of habeas corpus to those “in custody in violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States”). The relevant determination for purposes of this provision is whether the petitioner is in custody at the time he or she filed the federal habeas petition. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 6 (1998) (citing Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)); Maleng v. Cook, 490 US. 488, 490-491 (1989) (per curiam). The question presented in this case is: Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously concluded, in conflict with all other circuit courts to have addressed this issue, that Respondent, who was no longer serving his state sentence of probation at the time he filed his federal habeas corpus petition and is only subject to the mandates of Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), met the jurisdictional “in custody” requirement for federal habeas review?