Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or the Commission’s considered decision to impose a sentence at or near the maximum authorized only on those offenders who have engaged in three or more felonies. Instead, it allows the draconian effect of § 4B1.1 to reach even two-time offenders, in effect, redefining career offender status. Third, treating these sentences as separate also has implications for the reality and the appearance of fundamental fairness in sentencing. While an offender “has no substantive right to a particular sentence,” the Supreme Court has recognized that the “procedure which leads to the imposition of sentence” does implicate due process concerns. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977); see Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948) (<HOLDING>). And those concerns are triggered where the 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that concerns for officer safety warrant criminal history check during traffic stop (B) recognizing due process concerns inherent in sentencing based on false criminal history (C) holding that sentencing criminals in part based on criminal history is rationally related to a legitimate government interest (D) holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category (E) holding that request for departure in sentencing based on a criminal history category that overstated defendants record violated plea agreement that prohibited departure requests but did not stipulate to a specific criminal history category
Output (English): holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category