dicta to the Guidelines. See, e.g., Doe, 239 F.3d at 475; LaValle, 175 F.3d at 1108; Candelaria v. United States, 247 F.Supp.2d 125, 133-34 (D.R.I.2003); United States v. Cavallero, No. 95-59-P-H, 1999 WL 33117096, at *6 (D.Me. Nov. 17, 1999). 8 .Other courts have held that a state conviction that has been vacated because of the constitutional invalidity of a plea should not be counted for purposes of the Guidelines. See, e.g., United States v. Mobley, 96 Fed.Appx. 127, 129 (4th Cir.2004) (vacating denial of § 2255 petition and remanding for resentenc-ing where state conviction that was set aside after federal sentencing based upon constitutional invalidity of guilty plea was "expunged” and should not have been included in calculating criminal history points); LaValle, 175 F.3d at 1108 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lopez, No. Crim. 03-302,
holding petitioner not entitled to habeas relief on claim state court improperly used petitioners prior federal offense to enhance punishment holding that a conviction vacated by operation of a state rehabilitative statute still constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes holding that court should have granted  2255 petition where state conviction used to enhance federal sentence was vacated based on invalidity of plea holding an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction is valid because no prison term was imposed and the conviction may be used to enhance a sentence for a subsequent offense holding that where judgment and sentence for nonexistent crime had to be vacated upon remand the state shall have the option of withdrawing from the entire plea agreement since the plea agreement was based on a material mistake of law which works to the benefit of the defendant