and defense counsel then corrected the record to show that one of the charges had been dropped. Neither defense counsel nor petitioner, when given the opportunity, made any.other comment about alleged inaccuracies in the presentence report. Finally, the trial judge apparently did not rely on the allegedly false information. Petitioner’s claim has no merit. B. Premeditation and Deliberation Petitioner notes that he was not charged with murder by premeditation or deliberation (first-degree murder). He claims, however, that his sentencing guidelines were scored as if he had committed a crime with premeditation and deliberation. A federal court may entertain a petition from a state prisoner “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or t Mich.1987) (<HOLDING>). Even if petitioner’s claim were cognizable,
holding that sentencing court could consider whether the applicable guidelines were outdated and disproportionate but that imposing sentence based on the guidelines did not render sentence substantively unreasonable holding a sentence is not based on the guidelines unless the plea agreement itself expressly uses a guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment holding that defendant entitled to resentencing if the sentence imposed under the unconstitutional 1995 sentencing guidelines would constitute an impermissible departure sentence under the 1994 guidelines holding defendant sentenced to term equal to maximum guidelines sentence under improperly calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet was not entitled to be resentenced because defendant was habitualized such that sentencing guidelines score sheet was irrelevant and the sentence imposed was not illegal holding that the petitioner had no statecreated interest in having state sentencing guidelines applied rigidly in determining his sentence