Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): See 516 U.S. at 148, 116 S.Ct. 501. The Court subsequently recognized in Bousley that a p:re-Bailey conviction pursuant to a plea agreement would be constitutionally defective if a defendant was misinformed of the elements of § 924(c)(1), see 523 U.S. at 618-19, 118 S.Ct. 1604 and that a pre-Bailey conviction based on an unintelligent guilty plea may be attacked on collateral review, see id. at 621, 118 S.Ct. 1604. Although the government concedes that Abdullah’ 2d 40 (2000); United States v. Lawson, 155 F.3d 980, 982 (8th Cir.1998) (“[Ijssues not presented to the district court will not be considered on appeal unless a finding of waiver would be unfair or unjust.”), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1186, 119 S.Ct. 1131, 143 L.Ed.2d 124 (1999); Devose v. Norris, 53 F.3d 201, 207 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Abdullah’s § 2255 petition, filed in 1993, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that habeas claim not included in petition and never raised by petitioner before the district court as basis for habeas relief is procedurally defaulted (B) holding that district court must resolve all claims for relief premised on alleged constitutional violations which are raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus whether habeas relief is granted or denied (C) holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted (D) holding that an argument not raised before the district court is procedurally defaulted (E) holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied
Output (English): holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied