With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Islands concedes that the district court erred in its determination to consider the petition as a section 2255 motion. The jurisdictional authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is limited to challenges to the legality of a sentence and does not encompass the power to entertain a claim of wrongful revocation of pa role. See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 187, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2241, 60 L.Ed. 2d 805 (1979) (section 2255 challenges the lawfulness of the sentence, not the lawfulness of the actions of the parole commission); United States v. Ferri, 686 F.2d 147 (3d Cir.1982) (challenge to constitutionality of Parole Commission’s action does not fall under section 2255), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211, 103 S.Ct. 1205, 75 L.Ed.2d 446 (1983); Musto v. United States, 571 F.2d 136, 140 (3d Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); Wright v. United States Board of Parole, 557

A: holding that cue review applies only to prior final decisions of agencies of original jurisdiction ros and not to prior decisions of the board
B: holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions
C: holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole
D: recognizing danger of expanding section 2255 jurisdiction to allow for review of individual parole decisions
D.