People v. Valdez-Allen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a petitioner “cannot challenge his classification as a career offender under the Guidelines . . . on collateral review”
• holding that a challenge to the validity of the defendant’s career offender enhancement under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines is not cognizable on collateral review
• holding that a petitioner “cannot challenge his classification as a career offender under the Guidelines . . . on collateral review”
• holding that a petitioner “cannot challenge his classification as a career offender under the Guidelines ... on collateral review”
• holding that “it was reasonable for [] trial counsel not to object” to the trial court’s sentencing determination given “such uncertainty in the caselaw”
• holding that challenge to career offender enhancement under United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (per curiam

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).