could review'Moore’s petition because it contests the “manner, location, or conditions of [his] sentence’s execution.” See also Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). This court’s decision in Nettles v. Grounds—which restricts the scope of habeas jurisdiction for state prisoners—is not to the contrary. See 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that the court “need not address how the standard ... adopted here applies to relief sought by prisoners in federal custody”). On remand the court must consider whether Moore’s claim is foreclosed by 18 U.S.C. § 3625, which this court has held precludes judicial review of “discretionary determinations” made by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) under 18 U.S.C. § 3621. Compare Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>), with Rodriguez v. Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238,
holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over habeas petition by federal prisoner seeking to challenge ins detainer because detainer is merely a notice and lodging thereof does not constitute custody for habeas purposes holding district court lacked authority to order placement at a school not approved by the state holding the court lacked jurisdiction over claim under  2513 without certificate from district court holding district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a removal order because such challenges must be raised in a petition for review holding thatthe district court lacked jurisdiction over habeas challenge to bops individualized placement determination