Question No. 1: Did the court of appeale error by
cenging a kertificate a
BPR0
whether the cistrc
Pehtover's fecleral hebees petton
Ome uwclerTatle 2
Sectin zztl whew the claims preswtee dii wot
Chellenge the decision of a Stete conrt gudgment. but
chellenge the cecision of os Aclrinvistrotiue Agoncy uvaler
whih the Petitiower is is Custody:

Question No.2! Dic the coust ot appeats error is it's
eletermivctin thet the dstriet Conrt was correct upon
it's determiwetin thet the pentin wos moot wher the
2
revocahon psceeeiugs.
cletermivation that th Petitionerail to exhaust his
a SupplementalPehhon acis a respont to the Stote's
Answer is theStatebabegs proeeadewg althongh State Law

Questiois No. 4: Die the court of cppecls error s it's
detesmioatin thet the dhistict conrt was correcf upow its
thet th cleriet ot hobeos relit epproprcte whew such
eaopelli, 93SCt.17
S
1011
r(1970). CNSE
the perolee be fond to heve veolotee
Heorus
be held;(2
wel (3) thet the recorel reflea
i
C CoNelah
arolee wad deniee the rght to
the tecsom
bym
t

Questios No.S: Did the court of appels error with
scdress the Petitioner's clain for Declaratory Relet
pursuant t0 Title 28 Us.c, Sectien 2201 &0 deelere his
riqhts uncder a formntaqreerent cud Contract?

Whether the court of appeals erred by concluding that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 rather than under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 was within 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 when the claims presented did not challenge the decision of an Article III court but a decision of an Administrative Agency under which the petitioner is in custody