A fteran e xam i nati on o fthe bri ef s a nd the re cor d, w e hav e co ncl ud ed that or al * ar gu m en t is u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d
. See Fed
. R. A p p . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United 

# S tates C o u rt o f A p p ea ls F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d Jul y 2 2, 20 09 * Deci ded J uly22 , 20 09 B efo re JO H N L . C O FF E Y , Cir cu i tJudg e JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 1260 A N T H O N Y L. RO B E R T S, P laint if f-A ppell ant,
v. L A R RY L. J E N K I N S, D efend a nt-A pp ellee
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cou r t f o rthe Ea st ern Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 08
- C-80 8 W illiam C . G rie sb ac h, Judg e .
O R D E R A nthony Ro ber ts, a W i sco nsi n pri sone r, fi l ed a pet i ti on forhabea s co rpus under 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 254 chal l engi ng hi s l oss o fgo od- ti m e cr edi ts and the e xtensi on o fhi s fi nal d isc h ar ge d at e fo llow in g th e re vo c at ion of h is p ar ole
. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd ism iss ed h is p e t i t i o nf o rp r o c e d u r a ld e f a u l ta n d w e a ffi r m. NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 1260 Page 2

W i sco nsi n re l eas ed Rober ts on par ol e a fterhe ha d ser ved si x yea rs o fa tw enty- fi veye ar se n te n c e fo r d eliv er in g c ra c k a n d vio lat in g a ta x -st am p law
. E igh t y ea rs aft er h is re l eas e, i n Octobe r 2007, an a dm i ni str ati ve j ud ge re vok ed Rober ts’ s par ol e for, am ong othe r vi o l at i o ns , b ea tinghi s g i r l fr i en d. T he j udg e o r der ed Ro be r ts r einc ar ce r at ed f o r6 8 m o nths an d h eld th atR ob er ts h ad forfe ite d h is go od -tim e c re d its , res u ltin g in an ex te n sio nof h is m ax i m um di sc ha r g e dat e fr o m 2 01 6 to 2 02 6. T he a dm i ni st r at i ve r ev i ew b o ar d a ffi r m ed th e j u d ge ’s d ec isio nan d ad vis ed R ob er ts th atan y fu rt h er ch alle n ge m u stbe br ou gh t w ith in f or ty- fi ve days v i a a peti ti on forco l l ate ra lr el i efi n W i sco nsi n sta te cour t. Ninety
- fi ve days l ate r Rober ts fi l ed a pet i ti on forco l l ate ra lr el i efi n sta te cour t. He did not, however, se rv e the warden w i th a copy o fhi s peti ti on, and so the sta te cour t di sm i sse d i t. Rob er ts ski pp ed o ve rthe W i sc o ns i n Co ur t o fAppea l s, a nd ins te ad o fa ppea l i ngthe di smi ss al, fi l ed a se co nd c o l l a t e r a lp e t i t i o n wi th the Wi s c o ns i n S up r e me Co ur t . T ha tp e t i t i o n a l s o wa s di s mi s s e d. InSep te m b er 20 08 R ob er ts filed h is § 22 54 p et itio narg u in g th atth e e x te n sio nof h is m axi m um di schar ge date v i ol ate d his co nsti tuti onalr i ghts. The di str i ct c ourthel d that b y f ai l i ngt o pr o per l y r ai se hi s ar g um en t i n the W i sc o ns i n c i r cui t co ur t an d e nt i r ely s k i ppi ng ap p ell ate review , Rob erts ha d f ail ed to exh au st his state rem ed ies. Th e cou rt therefore d ism iss ed th e p et itio nfor p ro c ed u ra l d efa u lt. W e re vie w th e d ism iss al d e n ov o. Se eBin tz v. Be r t rand, 403 F.3d 859 , 864 (7th C ir. 2005 ) . A pri sone r w i shi ng to chal l enge the l oss o fgo od- ti m e cr edi ts m ust e xhaust av ai l abl e st at e-c ou rtrem ed ies be for e t u rn in g t o fe d er al c ou rt . 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (b )(1) ; Li e b e r m an v. Thom as , 505 F.3d 665 , 667 (7th C ir. 2007). In W iscons in tha t rem ed y i s a pe titi on for a c om m on -law w ritof ce rt or ar i. M cAt e ev. Cowan , 25 0 F . 3d 506, 50 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) . In or der to sat i sfy the exhausti on r equi re m ent, a pri sone r m ust “ f ai rly pr ese nt” hi s cl ai m i n eac h ap p ro p ria te st at e c ou rt . B a ldw in v . Reese, 541 U .S. 27, 29 (2 00 4); see also O 'Su lliv a n v . B o erck el , 52 6 U .S. 83 8, 84 5 (1 99 9); M cA tee, 2 50 F . 3d at5 09 . R o be r ts di d no t pr es en t hi s cl ai m t o the W i sco nsi n Court ofA pp eal s a nd thus def aul ted i t. And al though he tr i ed unsuccessfully t o ci r cumve nta ful lr o und o fs ta te - co ur t r ev i ew b y s ee k i ngc o l l at er alr el i efdi r ec tly fr o m the W isc on sin Su p re m e C ou rt, th is fa iled effo rtd id n otfu lfill th e e x h au st ion req u ire m en t. See Cru m p v . La ne, 807F.2d 13 94 , 139 5 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ); se e also Crocket t v. H ulick, 54 2 F . 3d 1183, 11 93 (7t hC ir. 20 08 ). R ob er ts h as n ev er arg u ed th ath is d efa u lt s h ou ld be ex c u se d , s e e, e . g. , Wrink les v. B uss , 537F.3d 80 4, 81 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ), an d so an y s u c harg u m en t is w aiv ed , see A liw o li v. G ilm o re, 12 7 F . 3d 632, 63 4-3 5 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ). T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly c o nc l ud e d tha tR o b e r t s ’ s a r g ume nt s we r e p r o c e du r a l l y de f a ul t e d. AFFI RM ED .