Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas erred in holding that the petitioner was not in custody of the State of Missouri by virtue of his parole

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : )Wy herhor +e Ud. Court of, Appeals, fon +e, Tenth 7 Cikuit, OPMion) as well as tho opinton ot he | es, Distiet Count for the dist Net at Kauss, | AN in direct contlret wrt ts CoumM Ss | | holdings tr Tons v. Cunningham, g71US.236 | GGA) oud Spencer v. Keanu, S23 US.) SOF when Huy held that Hm petttianeh wos wor TKN custody “of the State of Mtssour by 7 vimue of Wis parole 7 . 2. Wheeler the Options of +e US. Court of Appeals fon tho Tenth Crdrcuitand HLU-S. : Distwict Coum Lor thy Distiver ot Kansas, are gin cdeeet comllict with this Cours holding in Setserv. Lunited States, S6U-3. | : 231 (6019) whon thoy upheld the Fedeta | , Bunau o£ Prrson’s decision that Ais sentence owas not “Legally CONCUITENT, | dispite the Srigenal SEMTENICIAG Cou s : judgnmant ender, that te, SENTENCES oo poore rmposad eoncuNent: _