2 . Although this language is relevant to the issue before us today, it is non-binding dicta, as the question before this Court in Greene involved the issuance of certificates of appeal-ability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, as opposed to the prerequisites for filing a successive habeas petition under section 2244(b). Even so, its reasoning is persuasive on the issue we address. 3 . It appears that in so doing, we join a number of other federal courts of appeals that have addressed the issue. See Thomas, 371 F.3d at 786 (11th Cir.2004) (" §§ 2241 and 2254 ... govern[ ] a single post-conviction remedy, with the § 2254 requirements applying to petitions brought by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court”); Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th
holding that rjoughly speaking  2254is the exclusive vehicle for prisoners in custody pursuant to a state court judgment who wish to challenge anything affecting that custody because it makes clear that bringing an action under  2241 will not permit the prisoner to evade the requirements of  2254 holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where there was no indication that the respondent was unaware of the placement or custody of the children at any time the motion to terminate stated that dss was given legal custody of the minor children and the record included a copy of an order in effect when the motion was filed that awarded dss custody of the children holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act holding that the issue of custody was foreign to the dissolution action because the husband was not the natural father but that the husband could seek to intervene to assert a thirdparty custody claim in a pending custody modification proceeding between the childs natural parents holding that habeas review is  for any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation