Opinion ID: 172410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether we may construe the petition as a challenge to the 2004 sentence as enhanced by the 2001 convictions

Text: McCormick's amended habeas petition refers to his 2004 sentence only once, in a brief footnote asserting that because the 2001 convictions were used to `enhance' the 2004 sentence, this petition is filed in part to attack that `enhancement.' (Amended § 2254 pet. (2001 convictions) at 13.) While this notation is perfunctory at best, we think that, construed with the deference to which pro se litigants are entitled, it may fairly be read as asserting a challenge to the [later] sentence[ ], as enhanced by the allegedly invalid prior conviction, Maleng, 490 U.S. at 493, 109 S.Ct. 1923 (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (additional citation omitted)).