Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): INA, the predicate conviction under § 922(g)(1) is not of an “aggravated felony,” nor even a “felony.” Instead, the predicate conviction under § 922(g)(1) is of any “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Further, such conviction may be in “any court,” and what “constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20). Case law interpreting Lope 798, at *4 (W.D.La. Sept.11, 2007) (“Further, since the resolution of petitioner’s predicament does not turn on an interpretation of the ‘aggravated felony’ provisions of the INA, the holding of Lopez, supra, does not apply.”); Maxwell v. Warden, No. 4:06 CV 2844, 2007 WL 546366, at *3 (ND.Ohio Feb.16, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I conclude Lopez does not apply 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the apprendi rule does not apply retroactively in the context of a  2241 petition (B) holding lopez did not apply to csa crimes outside of the ina context (C) holding that the attachment statute which did not expressly reach property beyond territorial limits of state would not be construed to apply to property outside state (D) holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government (E) holding for crimes committed on or after october 1 1988 the sentencing guidelines do not apply to habitual offender sentences
Output (English): holding that the attachment statute which did not expressly reach property beyond territorial limits of state would not be construed to apply to property outside state