Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): provision for premeditated murder, U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1, when it should have relied on the provision for non-premeditated murder, § 2A1.2. These claims do not rely on an intervening change in the law that has rendered the conduct for which he was convicted non-criminal. Massaro also invokes Alleyne v. United States in an effort to fit his sentencing claims within § 2255’s “safety valve.” In Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to the jury. 133 S.Ct. at 2155. Even assuming, arguendo, that Alleyne were relevant to Massaro’s sentence, we have made clear that Alleyne-based claims cannot be raised in a § 2241 petition. Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99, 102-03 (3d Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude that this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines (B) holding that only defendants who can allege they are actually innocent meaning they did not commit the crimes for which they are convicted may bring a petition for relief under crim proc  8301 (C) holding that prisoners sentenced prior to alleyne may not challenge their sentences under  2241 because alleyne did not render the crimes for which they were convicted noncriminal (D) holding that prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they did not affirmatively state that their bias against the plaintiffs would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict (E) holding that apprendi was not triggered because the defendants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment that were within the maximum penalties for the rico offenses that they were found guilty of committing
Output (English): holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines