Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1033-34 (8th Cir.2005). Smith’s Blakely challenge falls within the scope of his appeal waiver. Relying on Blakely, Smith argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it included drug quantities not admitted by him or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in setting his sentence. Smith argues that his base offense level should have been 32 based on the admitted drug quantities rather than 34 based on additional drug quantities as found by the district court. This Blakely challenge is quintessential^ a constitutional challenge to the Guidelines and is expressly precluded by Smith’s agreement not to appeal the constitutionality or legality of the Guidelines. See United States v. Young, 413 F.3d 727, 730, 2005 WL 1558486 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Nor does Smith’s appeal fall within the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants failure to object to the denial of his right peremptorily to challenge alternates constitutes a waiver of any right to appeal the issue (B) holding that a blakely challenge fell within the defendants waiver of his right to appeal the constitutionality or legality of the guidelines (C) holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence (D) holding that a municipal court had no constitutional or statutory authority to rule on the legality and constitutionality of a tax imposed on attorneys practicing within the city limits (E) holding that waiver of right to appeal sentence unless its was an upward departure barred appeal of sentence within guidelines range
Output (English): holding that a municipal court had no constitutional or statutory authority to rule on the legality and constitutionality of a tax imposed on attorneys practicing within the city limits