of § 841(b)(1)(C), arguing that the application of this sentencing enhancement was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. A. Procedural Issues Before addressing the merits of Gay-lord’s § 2255 motion, we note that the government has conceded three of the four antecedent procedural issues. First, the government concedes that a Burrage claim is cognizable under § 2255 because § 2255(a) provides relief for sentences “imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States[.]” If a defendant was improperly sentenced under § 841(b)(1)(C) as interpreted by Burrage, his sentence would be in violation of the laws of the United States, and thus a Burrage claim is cognizable under § 2255. See Ragland v. United States 784 F.3d 1213, 1214 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Second, the government acknowledges that
holding that a burrage claim is cognizable under  2255 holding claim is not cognizable holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983 holding claim is cognizable holding that misapplication of sentencing guidelines is generally not a proper claim under  2255