[the sheriff] is not acting in response to a court order and the prisoners transported do not have any county court business. The court's request for additional security cannot reasonably be argued to encompass the duty of transporting other entities' prisoners for revenue. The differing "nature" of the prisoner transport duties in WPPA II compared to the "nature" of the duties before us requires a different result than in WPPA II. Ozaukee County, 315 Wis. 2d 102, ¶ 31. While the sheriff was not acting for the court in carrying out the revenue-generating transport duty at issue in Ozaukee County, see id., ¶ 27, the same cannot be said here where, like in WPPA II, the "nature" of the duties involved directly relate to effectuating court orders, cf. Brown County, 767 N.W.2d 600, ¶ 8 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 23. DSA goes on to argue that this is not
holding that the petitioners federal habeas action accrued when a witness executed an affidavit recanting the testimony he gave during a prisoners murder prosecution not on the date that the state supreme court rejected the prisoners claim holding that pursuant to 28 usc  2254d1 if  the state court reached the correct result with respect to petitioners claim of constitutional violation even if on erroneous reasoning that is the end of our inquiry holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights holding consistent with our reasoning in wppa ii and ozaukee county we conclude that transporting prisoners pursuant to courtissued writs orders warrants and judgments of conviction is attending on the court because the sheriff is attending on the court his duty to transport prisoners at court direction is constitutionally protected holding that prisoners petition challenging additional two years on prisoners original sentence as a result of the decision of the prison disciplinary board is not subject to section 2244d1