Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for acceptance of responsibility, giving him an offense level of 17. This offense level, combined with his criminal history category of IV, yielded a sentencing range of 37 to 46 months. On May 27, 1994, the petitioner was sentenced to 44 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $50 special assessment. II. DISCUSSION The petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred. Section 2255 provides four avenues for relief where: (1) the sentence was in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; and (4) the sentence was otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see United States v. Osiemi, 980 F.2d 344, 345 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Lopez-Torres v. United States, 876 F.2d 4, 5 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing primary assumption of risk as a viable doctrine (B) holding that such a theory is viable under title vii (C) recognizing a challenge to jurisdiction as a viable claim (D) recognizing sentencing manipulation as a viable defense (E) holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim
Output (English): recognizing sentencing manipulation as a viable defense