Task: songer_typeiss

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the general category of issues discussed in the opinion of the court. Choose among the following categories. Criminal and prisioner petitions- includes 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 or the validity of continued confinement. Civil - Government - these will include appeals from administrative agencies (e.g., OSHA,FDA), the decisions of administrative law judges, or the decisions of independent regulatory agencies (e.g., NLRB, FCC,SEC). The focus in administrative law is usually on procedural principles that apply to administrative agencies as they affect private interests, primarily through rulemaking and adjudication. Tort actions against the government, including petitions by prisoners which challenge the conditions of their confinement or which seek damages for torts committed by prion officials or by police fit in this category. In addition, this category will include suits over taxes and claims for benefits from government. Diversity of Citizenship - civil cases involving disputes between citizens of different states (remember that businesses have state citizenship). These cases will always involve the application of state or local law. If the case is centrally concerned with the application or interpretation of federal law then it is not a diversity case. Civil Disputes - Private - includes all civil cases that do not fit in any of the above categories. The opposing litigants will be individuals, businesses or groups.

PER CURIAM.
Levon Brown filed two petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. Both petitions were based upon substantially the same facts. The District Court denied relief in each case and Brown appealed. We have consolidated the appeals.
Brown has been incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota, on a five-year sentence for forgery. It appears from the record before us that Brown is also wanted in Wisconsin for parole violation. In August of 1971, the United States Board of Parole granted Brown a limited parole in order to permit him to dispose of the outstanding Wisconsin charge. Brown was taken by the Pine County, Minnesota, Sheriff from Sandstone to Pine City, Minnesota, for delivery to Wisconsin authorities. Once in Pine City, Brown refused to submit to Wisconsin’s custody. He was then returned to Sandstone and has remained there to the present time.
Brown contends that his return to Sandstone was illegal in that it was unauthorized by law' and denied him the right to contest extradition. He also contends that he was entitled to the assistance of an attorney. The latter contention apparently stems from Brown’s belief that his parole was revoked and he was, thus entitled to a hearing before he was returned to Sandstone.
We find no merit in any of these contentions. The Board of Parole has wide discretion to determine under what conditions an inmate is to be paroled. See, O’Callahan v. Attorney General, 338 F.2d 989 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 926, 85 S.Ct. 1563, 14 L.Ed.2d 685 (1965); Gould v. Green, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 141 F.2d 533 (1944). It is clear that the Parole Board may parole an inmate to the custody of detainers. Mingo v. United States, 350 F.2d 313 (10th Cir. 1965); Carson v. Executive Director, Department of Parole, 292 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1961).
Brown was paroled “to the physical custody of detainers only.” Under this language, his parole was ineffective until the moment he was taken into physical custody by Wisconsin authorities. Since Brown’s transfer to Wisconsin never occurred, the parole never became operative. Cf., Small v. United States Board of Parole, 421 F.2d 1388 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1079, 90 S.Ct. 1532, 25 L.Ed.2d 815 (1970).
Under this view of the ease, we need not consider whether Brown was entitled to the services of an attorney or to a hearing. Since the parole never became effective, there was no revocation and thus no hearing was required. See, Morrissey v. Brewer, 443 F.2d 942 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, 404 U.S. 999, 92 S.Ct. 568, 30 L.Ed.2d 552 (1971).
Nothing we have said in this opinion should be construed to determine the right of any parolee, who has been paroled to something other than the custody of detainers only, to contest extradition.
The denial of the petitions for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

Question: What is the general category of issues discussed in the opinion of the court?
A. criminal and prisoner petitions
B. civil - government
C. diversity of citizenship
D. civil - private
E. other, not applicable
F. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A