Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): filed an Anders brief that did not mention the U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) sentencing issue, Defendant did not have the assistance of counsel in raising this claim or obtaining access to the information needed to challenge this particular aspect of his sentencing. This claim was therefore rejected on direct appeal because the evidence refuting the PSR’s erroneous information was not brought to t of sentencing error does- not rise to the level of “a miscarriage of justice” and thus is not cognizable under § 2255. See United States v. Talk, 158 F.3d 1064, 1070 (10th Cir.1998) (“[N]umerous cases have held that sentencing errors typically do not give rise to a miscarriage of justice sufficient to excuse procedural default.”); cf. Narvaez v. United States, 674 F.3d 621, 627 (7th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Talk, 158 F.3d at 1070 (assuming without 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice (B) holding that error in classifying defendant as a violent offender caused a miscarriage of justice (C) holding that courts of appeal should only correct a forfeited error at the trial level in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result (D) holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice (E) holding some evidence standard applicable to cdoc decision classifying inmate who had not been convicted of a sexual offense as a sex offender
Output (English): holding that courts of appeal should only correct a forfeited error at the trial level in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result