442 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that Garlotte permits review of expired sentence even if consecutive term currently being served was imposed by different court at different time); Foster v. Booker, 296 F.3d 947, 950 (10th Cir.2002) (reasoning that petitioner serving later in series of consecutive sentences imposed by same sovereign can challenge the expired sentence). Thus, the district court had jurisdiction to consider Miller’s belated challenge to the revocation of his parole on those long-expired terms. Miller first argues that the execution of the parole-violator warrant was invalid because the deputy marshals disregarded the Parole Commission’s instruction not to execute the warrant if he was “already in state custody.” He relies on Barnard, v. Henman, 89 F.3d 373 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), to argue that an invalidly executed warrant
holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional holding that it is a violation of the fourth amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of third parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant holding valid conditions for execution of the warrant which are constitutionally satisfactory stated in the affidavit that solicits the warrant and accepted by the issuing magistrate holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that 90day time limit in which to conduct revocation hearing is triggered only by valid execution of paroleviolator warrant