of a State court ... on the ground that [the person applying] is in custody in violation of the Constitution ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). That characterizes Cook’s petition precisely. Cf James, 308 F.3d at 166-67. Cook argues, however, that section 2254 is not applicable to his petition because his custody is “pursuant to” an order of the parole board rather than a state court. Cook bases his argument on a series of cases in which we concluded that federal prisoners whose complaints were not directed at the imposition of their sentences could seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and thereby avoid the strictures of section 2255, section 2254’s analog for federal prisoners. See, e.g., Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Murphy v. United States, 199 F.3d 599, 601 n.
holding that a second state court conviction for simple possession of narcotics is an aggravated felony as defined in 8 usc  1101a43 holding special conditions of probation must be imposed at sentencing and may not be imposed at resentencing holding that administrative sanctions imposed for possession of narcotics while federally incarcerated may be challenged under section 2241 holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged holding that evidence supported finding of constructive possession of concealed narcotics in part because narcotics paraphernalia was found in residence