Whether the District Court erred in concluding that it did not have jurisdiction because the petitioner was no longer in custody of the state court judgment he was attacking while in federal custody

QUESTION PRESENTED t1] Whether the District Court err in concluding that it did not have jurisdiction because Petitioner herein was no longer in . in the custody of the judgment of the New Mexico State Court . of whose prior conviction he was attacking while being in Federal custody? : [2] Whether the Ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals err in misunderstanding this Court's Ruling in LACKAWANNA CNTY. DIST. AfTiY v. COSS, 532 U.S. 394 (2001), and in failing to acknowledge ; that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is subject to Equitable Tolling Principles? L3) Whether a CRONIC VIOLATION is analougus to a GIDEON TYPE VIOLATION thus equal too and meeting the LACKAWANNA EXCEPTION as articulated : in LACKAWANNA supra, pursuant to the holdings of AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308 U.S. 444, (1940), Hence, is a Constructive Denail of Counsel AKIN, as to not having counsel appointed at all. .