under the ACCA. C. Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner claims that his sentence was imposed beyond the statutory maximum for his felon-in-possession offense and, so, is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, and is otherwise subject to collateral attack as a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Where a defendant is punished “for an act that the law does not make criminal ... such a circumstance inherently results in a completely miscarriage of justice.” Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346-47, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974) (quotations omitted). Generally, a sentencing court’s erroneous application of sentencing guidelines is not a “miscarriage of justice,” cognizable on a habeas review. See Knight v. United States, 37 F.3d 769, 773-74 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 704
holding that a court of appeals may presume reasonable a district courts proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that the preponderance standard is generally appropriate in guidelines sentencing holding that the district court should not have considered a  2255 petition based on an alleged misapplication of the sentencing guidelines holding that a burrage claim is cognizable under  2255 holding that misapplication of sentencing guidelines is generally not a proper claim under  2255