With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1335-36 (6th Cir.1977). Cf. Francis v. Fox, 838 F.2d 1147, 1150 (11th Cir.1988) (a state work-release regulation issued pursuant to a statutory grant of discretionary power to the Corrections Department is not an ex post facto “law”). But see Akins v. Snow, 922 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir.1991), petition for cert. filed, 59 U.S.L.W. 3783 (U.S. May 9, 1991) (No. 90-1730) (a state paroling authority’s regulations promulgated pursuant to a broad statutory grant of power to enact parole rules are subject to the ex post facto prohibition); Royster v. Fauver, 775 F.2d 527, 534 (3rd Cir.1985) (“This circuit, alone among all others, maintains that parole regulations may be laws for purposes of ex post facto analysis.”); Rodriguez v. United States Parole Comm’n, 594 F.2d 170, 174 (7th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Because we hold that the Minnesota parole

A: holding a parole rule equivalent to a statute
B: holding defendant does not waive fourth amendment protection by signing parole agreement but the search condition does confirm right of parole officer to conduct reasonable searches within scope of parole mission
C: holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania
D: holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole
A.