denial but not the underlying conviction or sentence and subsequently was released on parole during the pendency of the petition. E.g., Vandenberg v. Rodgers, 801 F.2d 377, 378 (10th Cir.1986) (“We hold that [petitioner’^ appeal is moot. His petition for habeas corpus merely challenges determinations that delayed his parole date; and because he is already released from custody on parole, we find no purpose in reaching the merits of his arguments.”); Brady v. United States Parole Comm’n, 600 F.2d 234, 236 (9th Cir.1979) (“Appellant’s § 2241 habeas corpus petition attacks the Parole Commission’s decision to keep him in custody. He is now on parole and does not challenge the validity of his original conviction. On this record the case is moot.”); Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d at 1001 (<HOLDING>); Granville v. United States, 613 F.2d 125, 126
holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole holding that the parole commission is required to state reasons for its finding that an inmate continues to be a poor candidate for parole release holding that the state courts decision to uphold the parole boards denial of parole was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence recognizing that it is well established that where a state provides a discretionary parole regime prisoners do not have a liberty or property interest in parole