Cir.2004). Although a defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction used to enhance his sentence, no collateral challenge may be made if the prior conviction is more than five years old. 21 U.S.C. 851(e). The district court allowed Baranda to attack the conviction for the purpose of computing criminal history points, and the court sustained the attack. As a result, Baranda had zero criminal history points, making him eligible for the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 8553(f). The court found that Baranda satisfied the “safety valve” requirements and sentenced him to an 87-month prison term. Baranda concedes, as he must, that he could not collaterally attack his prior conviction as the district court allowed. See United States v. Burrows, 36 F.3d 875, 885 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Clawson v. United States, 52 F.3d
holding that a defendant cannot collaterally attack a prior state conviction during a federal sentencing proceeding in a different case holding that a defendant cannot collaterally challenge a prior conviction used to calculate criminal history points holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that due to statute defendant cannot collaterally attack prior convictions used to enhance sentence unless in violation of the right to counsel holding that a habeas petitioner cannot collaterally attack the conviction serving as a predicate for a removal order