Task: songer_geniss

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. Consider the following categories: "criminal" (including appeals of conviction, petitions for post conviction relief, habeas corpus petitions, and other prisoner petitions which challenge the validity of the conviction or the sentence), "civil rights" (excluding First Amendment or due process; also excluding claims of denial of rights in criminal proceeding or claims by prisoners that challenge their conviction or their sentence (e.g., habeas corpus petitions are coded under the criminal category); does include civil suits instituted by both prisoners and callable non-prisoners alleging denial of rights by criminal justice officials), "First Amendment", "due process" (claims in civil cases by persons other than prisoners, does not include due process challenges to government economic regulation), "privacy", "labor relations", "economic activity and regulation", and "miscellaneous".

PER CURIAM:
Appellant is presently in California penal custody serving an indeterminate sentence of two-to-ten years on a narcotics conviction. In addition, he faces a future consecutive sentence of one-year-to-life on a conviction for escape without force. Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus showed on its face that the escape conviction was valid. Appellant attacked only the validity of the narcotics conviction. The district court summarily denied the petition, reasoning that even if appellant’s narcotics conviction were invalid, appellant would have to serve the sentence on the escape charge and thus appellant was not eligible for the writ because he was not entitled to “immediate release” within the meaning of McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 138, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934), as interpreted by this court in Hoffman v. United States, 9 Cir., 244 F.2d 378, 381-382 (1957).
In its recent decision in Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U.S. 335, 88 S.Ct. 962, 19 L.Ed.2d 1215 (March 11, 1968), the Supreme Court held that McNally was not a bar to habeas corpus attack on the first of two consecutive sentences. Thus, the ground upon which the district court relied in not reaching the merits of appellant’s petition is no longer tenable.
Reversed and remanded.

Question: What is the general issue in the case?
A. criminal
B. civil rights
C. First Amendment
D. due process
E. privacy
F. labor relations
G. economic activity and regulation
H. miscellaneous
Answer:

Answer: A