Phillip D. Scott v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court should not have considered a § 2255 petition based on an alleged misapplication of the sentencing guidelines
• concluding that sentencing guidelines are not “laws” within the meaning of § 2255
• observing “that arguments of the sort [the defendant] proffers [in his § 2255 petition] must be advanced on direct appeal or not at all”
• the Sentencing Guidelines are not \laws\ for purposes of sec.2255, so errors in calculating the sentence generally cannot be raised on collateral attack
• “A claim that the judge misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines does not challenge the jurisdiction of the court or assert that the judge exceeded the statutory maximum.”
• observ- ing “that arguments of the sort [the defendant] proffers [in his § 2255 petition] must be advanced on direct appeal or not at all”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).