What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.

Opinion:
HUNTER, WARDEN, v. MARTIN.
No. 643.
Argued April 22, 1948.
Decided May 24, 1948.
W. Marvin Smith argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Quinn, Robert S. Erdahl and Philip R. Monahan.
James F. Reilly argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner is held prisoner in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. He pleaded guilty to charges of forging and uttering United States Treasury checks. He was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on each count, to run concurrently, and the judgment provided that sentence should “begin to run at the expiration of the sentence now being served in the Missouri State Penitentiary.” Petitioner was returned to the Missouri authorities to resume the service of a state sentence of three years for automobile theft. On May 13, 1947, before expiration of such period, he was paroled by the State and delivered to the federal authorities, by whom he has since been held. He contends that the federal sentence does not begin until the full term of the State sentence has expired and that, for the period of parole, he is entitled to freedom. The issue as to whether such wording of a federal sentence entitles the prisoner under such circumstances to temporary freedom is one on which Circuit Courts of Appeals are in conflict. Compare United States ex rel. Lombardo v. McDonnell, 153 F. 2d 919; Johnston v. Wright, 137 F. 2d 914; Kirk v. Squier, 150 F. 2d 3; Martin v. Hunter, 165 F. 2d 215. We brought the case here on certiorari, 333 U. S. 854, to resolve the conflict.
We think it clear that the purpose of the clause deferring commencement of service of the federal sentence was to prevent conflict between the State and Federal Governments. The present federal imprisonment avoids such conflict and achieves that purpose. Missouri authorities have released petitioner from their custody and surrendered him for the apparent purpose of serving his federal sentence and have reserved control over him as a parolee only in event he is not kept in prison during the period of the federal sentence. For all practical purposes contemplated by the judgment, the State sentence has expired — at least insofar as it was an obstacle to service of the federal sentence.
To hold otherwise would mean that a man already finally adjudged guilty of a serious federal crime and sentenced to ten years imprisonment would be left at large and free of all restraint for an interlude between release from the state prison and commencement of the federal term. We do not think such a result is required or intended under the statute, 18 U. S. C. § 709a, or under the terms of the sentence as imposed.
The District Court, after full hearing, dismissed the writ of habeas corpus and remanded petitioner to custody to serve his sentence. We think this was á correct disposition of the matter. The Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary is error.
Judgment reversed.
The Act of June 29,1932, c. 310, § 1,47 Stat. 381.

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?

Choices:
judicial review (national level)
judicial review (state level)
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
statutory construction
interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
diversity jurisdiction
federal common law

Answer: 3