## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3664 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. A LBE RT D. B URNET T, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:0 9CR30 03 2-0 01 -GPM

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Ju dge
.

A RG UE D M AY 4, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 6, 2011

Befo re E A S T E R B R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd F LA UMa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch ief

Judg e . Albe r t Bur ne tti s a vi o l en t m an. H e h as b een c onvi cted fi ve ti m es ofag gr ess i ve fel oni es

— m urder, at tem pted m urder ( tw i ce) , ag gr avat ed batt ery, an d dom estic batt ery

— an d sever alti m es of o th e r o ffe n s e s , i n c l u d i n gt wi c e p o s s e s s i n gfi r e a r ms m ade unl awfulb y hi s st atus a s a fel o n. Ju d ges an d paro l e o ffi ci al s in I l l i noi s hav e be en r em ar kabl y l eni ent.2 N o. 10

- 3664 Bu rnet t s er ved l ess than f our ye ar s ofhi s s entence f or mu r d e r, a c r i me h e c o mmi t t e d wh i l e o n p a r o l e f r o m t he two c o nv i ct i o ns f o r a tt empte d m ur der, befo r e be i ng released again on p arole. I n A p ril 2009 B urn et t p a rti ci pat ed i n a s ho o to uti n Al to n, I l l i no i s. Thi s ti m e he w as pros ecuted in federa l co urt, wh er e he p lead ed g uil ty to u nl a wfulp o s s e s s i o n o fa fi r e a r m. 1 8 U. S

. C. §922 ( g) ( 1). T he pro secuto r ask ed the dist ri ct c ourtto sente nce Burnettas an a rm ed car eercr i m i nal under §9 24 (e), w h ic h ca rrie s a 15 -ye ar m in im u m te rm . Th is s u b s e c t i o n a p p l i e s t o a p e r s o n w h o c o mmi t s a fi r e a r ms o ffen se a nd ha s th r ee pr ev i o us c o nv i ct i ons f o r v i o l en t fel oni es orse ri ous dr ug o ffenses . Bu rnet t has fi ve pri orco nvi cti ons ofcr i m es that have vi ol ence as an e l em ent o fthe offense. But the dist ri ct cour t concl ud ed that f our ofthe fi ve do not count be cause, when B u r n e t t ’ s p a r o l e s u p e r v i s i o n o n h i s mu r d e r a nd ag gr av at ed ba tt er y c on vic tio n s e x p ire d , sta te offic ials se nthi m l et te r s sa y i ngtha t hi s ci vi l r i g ht s to v o te a nd h old offic e h ad be en res to re d au to m at ica lly u n d er Il lin ois law

. T h e se let te rs d id n otte ll B u rn et t t h at Il lin ois does not re sto re to fel ons th e r i ght t o posse ss fi re ar m s. The om i ssi on of that i nfo rm ati on l ed us to h old i n B uc hm eier v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 58 1 F

. 3d 561 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( enb an c) , tha t a l et te r i d en ti ca l t o the t wo I l l i no i s se nt Bu rnet t m eant th at the convi cti on t o w hi ch the l ett er re fer re d no l onge r counts as a vi ol ent fel ony. B uc hm eier i nter prete d §921( a) ( 20) , which pro vi des, am ong othe r th i ng s, tha t “[ w]h atc o ns ti tu te s a co nv i ct i o n o fs ucha cri m e s hal l be deter m i ned i n ac c or dance w i th the l aw o f th e j ur i sdi ct i o n in whi chthe pr o ce eding s w er e he l d. AnyN o. 10

- 3664 3 convi cti on wh i ch has been ex p unged, o r setas i de or for w hi ch a perso n has been pardoned or has ha d civ il ri ghts re sto re d shal l n ot be c onsi dered a convi cti on f o r pur po se s o fthi s ch apt er, unl es s such par do n, e xp u n ge m en t, or re st or at ion of ci v il righ ts ex p re ss ly provi des thatthe perso n m ay not shi p, tr an spor t, p os se ss , or rec eiv e fire ar m s.” The U ni ted St ate s conte nd ed i n the dist ri ct cour t that, al th o ug h I l l i no i s twice sen t Bur ne ttthe s ame l et te r i t se nt Bu chm ei er, the re cor d does no t e stabl i sh thatBurnett re cei ved orr ead the l ett erei therti m e. Burnettco uld not produce co pie s, and he d oes notr em em berwh ether h e re c eiv ed t h e l e tt er (or re ad it, if h e g otit). I llin ois sends the se l ett er s byo rdi narym ai l, so r ecei pt coul d not be docum ented by B u rnet t’ s s i gnatur e o r that ofa re l ative. ( I ll inois m us t hav e sen t the l etters to h is m oth er’s ad d re ss , th e o n ly on e i t h ad onfile for h im .) B uc hm eier described §92 1( a) ( 20) as an a nti- m ouset ra pp i ng r ule , desi gned to ensur e that per sons w ho have bee n to l d that al l ci vi l r i ghts have been re store d are notta ken b y su rpr i se whenthe s ta tu te b o o k s co nt ain r es er va ti o ns ( su cha s a ba n o n po ss es singfi r ea r m s) om i tt ed fr o m the co m m uni ca ti o n. 5 81 F

. 3d at5 66 –6 7. Thi s i m pl i es , the pros ecuto r conte nd ed, thato nl y a per so n wh o can s ho w tha th e r e c e i v e d, r e a d, a nd u nd e r s t oo d a mi s l e a di ngl y incom ple te com m unica ti on fro m the sta te can take ad van tage of the “u nless” clause in §92 1(a)( 20). The dis tr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed, however, t hat § 921( a) ( 20) es ta b lish es an ob j ec tiv e ru le

— o ne tha t depe nds o n the conte nt o fthe com m unica ti on

— r a the r tha n a s ubj e c ti ve4 N o. 10

- 3664 rule tha t d ep en d s on th e ext en t of a recipi e nt ’s ( m i s) unde r st an di ng . Thi s k no ck ed o utthe murde r a nd ag g r av at ed ba tt ery c o nv i ct i ons . The co ur t al so c o nc lu d ed th at th e le tt er B u rn et t r e c e i ve d w h en h is p ar ole fr o m th e mu r d e r c o n v i c t i o n e x p i r e d a p p l i e s t o th e t wo ea rlier co n vic tio n s fo r at te m p te d m u rd er as w ell. T h is l eft o nl y o ne qual ifyin g convi cti on f ora vi ol ent fel ony. That i s e nough to support a fel on- i n-pos ses si on co nv icti o n un der§ 92 2( g ) b utno t en o ug h for a r ec i di vi ste nhanc e men t

. T he di s t r i c tc o ur ts e nt e nc e d B urne t tt o 12 0 m on th s’ i m pri sonm ent, the sta tutory m axi m um under §922 ( g) ( 1) but 60 m onths bel ow the m i n im u m te rm pre scr ibed by th e Arm ed Caree r Cri m i nal A ct. The U ni ted S t a t e s h a s a pp e a l e d. W e a gr ee w i th the d ist rict co urt that §921 ( a) ( 20) se ts an obj ecti ve sta nd ar d. N othi ng i n the sta tutory l an gu age a s k s wh a ta p e r s o n b e l i e v e s . T he s t a t ut e a s k s o nly what a d oc u m en t c on ta in s. If th e d oc u m en t s ay s t h at civ il ri ghts have been re sto re d but om i ts a fi re ar m s qual i fi cation, th enthe c o nv i ct i o n n o l o ng erc o unt s as a v i o l en t felo n y. B uc h m eierus ed th e an ti

- m o us et r appingl an guage to sum m ar i ze th e re aso n w hy Congr ess wrote §9 21 (a)( 20 ) t o r eq u ire th e fire ar m s re se rv at ion to be in the c om m unica ti on

— ra ther than, sa y, r equi ring the fel on to sea rch the whol e o fst ate l aw to di sco verwh at ri ghts he enj oye d . B u t the r eas ons b e hi nda sta tute differfro m the c onte nts of

a sta tute. Con gr es s im ple m ented i ts goa l byl an g ua g e th attur ns e nt i r ely o n the c o nt en t o fthe co m m uni ca ti o n. B uc hm eierh e l d th a tth e e ffe c to fa c o mm unica t i o n do e s n o tde pe nd o n s t a t e l a w a s a wh o l e, an d we a dd t o daytha t th e effec t al so do es no t depe ndN o. 10

- 3664 5

o n w h e th e r th e r e c i p i e n tr e a ds o r u n d e r s t a n d s th e c o mm uni ca ti o n. S ec ti o n 92 1( a) ( 20 ) di r ec ts us to th e four c o r ne r s o fthe do c ume nt, a nd the r e we s t o p. T he p rosecu tor’s se con d a rgum en t is stron ger, how ever. The l et te r s th atthe I l l i no i s Depa r tmento fCo r r ec ti o ns s e ntt o B u r n e t tb e g i n b y s t a t i n gth a tth e a d d r e s s e e c o mple te d his se ntence ( orhi s par ol e, i fany) o n a par ti cul ar date, and that on that date “y our obl i gat i on t o the Departm ent c eas es. ” The l ett er t hen say s that the r i ghts to v o te a nd ho ld off ice unde r the Co ns ti tu ti o n o fthe State of I ll inois have been res t o r ed

. Th e inclusion of a d at e th at ti es the l ett erto a si ngl e s entence i m pli es that r i g ht s ha ve be en r es to r ed wi th r es pec t to th e con vic ti o ns u n d e r l yin g t h at se n te n c e o n ly. T h is w ou ld be cle ar if Bu rnet t had be en co nvi cted o f tw o m urders and had been pardoned f oro nl y o ne; the othe r convi cti on wo ul d r e mai n, wi th whateve r c i v i l di s ab i l i t i e s i tc a r r i e d. W e d o not see w hy a l etter sh o u ld b e trea ted differen tly . I lli n o i s m ak es th e re st or at ion of (so m e) c ivil ri ghts a ut o mat i c wh e n a s e nt e nc e h a s b e e n ful l y s e r v e d. That i s a co nvi cti on-by- convi cti on pro cess , and a l ett er tel l i ng th e ex- pri sone r about thi s l ogi cal l y a l so appli es co nv i ct i o n-by

- co nv i ct i o n. Bu rnet t r epl i es ( and the di str i ct j ud ge concl ud ed) that th e dat e i n the l et te r l i nk s i t to a l l c onv ic ti o ns b eing se r ve d a t o ne t i m e, r athe r tha n t o a pa r ti cul arc o nv i ct i o n. Tha t i s a po ss ibl e r ea d ing, we s uppo se . The l et te r i nclu d es a d ate but does not m enti on the cr i m e. I t doe s not say“y our paro l e fol l owing yourco nvi cti on f or m urder ex p ire d o n” a parti cul ardate. I t s ays i nstea d that6 N o. 10

- 3664 “yo u have com ple ted the m ax im um o fyo ur s entence as of” a g i ve n dat e. A pe r so n who ha d be en se r vingconc urre nt se ntences m i ght re ad the si ngul ar“s entence ” t o d es ign at e t h e w h ole cu st od ial te rm , a n d th en th e a n tim ou se tr ap p in g c on c er n t h a t w e d isc u ss ed inB uc hm eier i m pli es t h at the l ett erco ver s a l l o fthe cri m es that l ed to the c oncurr ent s ente n c e. Thi s underst anding w oul d be c on sis te n t w ith Illin ois la w , too : th e e x p ira tio n of m u ltip le se n te n c es on a sin gle d at e a u to m at ica lly re st or es civ il rig h ts w ith res p ec t t o a ll of th os e c on vic t i o n s. B u t t h at is no t r emot ely Bur ne tt ’ s si tu at i o n. Bur ne tts tabb ed a m an i n th e ba cko n Mar ch8 , 1 98 8, a nd w as convi cted o fat tem pted m urder. H e be at a m an with a pi pe o n May 9, 1 98 8, a nd was c o nv icted o fa s ec o nd att em pted m urder. H e was se ntenced f or bo th cr i m es on Au g us t1 8 , 1 9 8 8 , t o c o nc ur r e ntt e r ms o fs i x y ear s’ i m pri sonm ent, fro m wh i ch he was paro l ed on M ar ch 17, 19 92

. He k i l l ed a m ano n J ul y 8 , 1 99 2. H is p aro l e o n the tw o att em p ted

- m urder convi cti ons w as re vok ed that Oct o be r, pl ac i nghi m b ac ki n pr i so n. He was later co nvi cted o f m urder. In J anuary19 94 hi s m axi m um i m pri sonm ent o n re voca ti on o fparo l e e nd ed; fro m t hen on hi s c us t o dywa s s up po r t e d o nly b y the s e nt e nc e h e r ecei ved f orthe m urder convi cti on. H e was paro l ed fro m the m urder convi cti on in A pri l 19 97, and that te rm o f paro l e e xpir ed in A pri l 19 99. That’ s when the Depart

m en t o f C or re c tio n s s en t h i m th e le tt er sa yin g t h at h is c i v i l r i g ht s h a d b e e n r e s t o r e d. A s a n o bj ecti ve m att er, a l ett erthatr efer s t o the e xpir ati o n o fa s en te nc e i n A p r i l 1 99 9 m us t ha ve b ee n de al i ngN o. 10

- 3664 7

w i th the m urder convi ctio n al one; bythen the e nd o f Bu rnet t’ s cust ody f ol l owing the r evo cati on o fhi s par ole l ay m or e than fi ve yea rs i n the past. I t m ay w el l be th at Il lin ois refr ain ed from se n d i n g B u rn et t le tt er s in J an ua r y 1 99 4 ab o uthi s at te m pted-m ur derc o nv i ct i o ns because the ongo i ng cust ody f ort h e m urder convi cti on m ea nttha t he c o ul d no t vo te o r hol d pub l i c o ffi ce . But it d oe s n otm at te r w h y Illino is fa i l e d to se n d let te rs in J anuary19 94; thi s a pp ealco ncer ns t h e effect ofthe l ett er itdidse nd i n A pri l 19 99. That l ett er, l i nked as it w as to th e ex pi r at i o n o fhi s p arole o n the murde r c o nv i ct i o n, h as a n effect l i m i ted to the m urder convi cti on. Li kewis e th e l et te r tha t Bur ne ttr ec ei ve d i n 2 002, whenhi s se nt e nc e f o r a g g r a v a t e d b a t t e r y e x p i r e d , c o v e r s th a tc r i me al one. This m eans that Bu rnet t h as thre e co untabl e co nvi cti o ns f o r v i o l en t fel o ni es : t wo a tt empte d m ur der s an d o ne do m es ti c ba tte ry . H e m ust be r ese ntenced under §9 24( e) as an arm ed ca re er cr im in al. W e ca nnot cl ose , however, witho ut r em ar ki n g on th e co nt i nui ngdi ffi cul ti es tha t I l l i no i s se em s t o b e ex p er ien c in g in info rm in g it s e x -p ris on er s w h ich civ il r i g h ts th ey h old , an d w h ich th ey d o n ot

. B uc hm eierdi scusses se ver alo fthe probl em s in the le tte r that the Departm ent o fCor re cti ons used fro m the ear l y 1 990s thro ugh M ar ch 2004, the f or m sent to bot h Buchm ei er and Bu rnet t. That for m m i sst at es the ci vi l r i ghts that ha ve been rest o r ed ( des pi te whatthe l et te r s ay s, the right to vote is n ot au tom aticall y res tored to ex-p risoners), f ai l s t o al er t ex - pri sone rs thattheycannotr un fo r m ayo r8 N o. 10

- 3664 and o the r o ffi c e s n o tc r e a t e d d i r e c t l y b y the Co ns t i tuti on o fI l l i n o i s , a n d o mi t s th e v i t a l fi r e a r ms r e s e r v a t i o n . As th i s ca se s how s, the f o r m l et te r a l so i s ambi g uo us abo ut th e sc o pe o fi ts a ppl i ca ti o n. By i nc l udi nga da te , b ut om i tting anym enti on o fwh i ch co nvi cti ons the l ett er c ov er s, t h e c om m u n ica tio n co u ld be rea d to res to re civ il r i g ht s f orall f or m erfel oni es

— and, though we have h eld th at it d oe s n oth a v e t h is e ffec t, it d oe s re st or e c ivil ri ghts f oral l cr i m es that l ed to co ncurr ent s entence s en di ngo n th e d ate s pec i fi ed i n the l et te r . ( Tha t was the si tu at i o n in B uc hm eierits elf.) I l l i no i s ch an g ed i ts f o r m l et te r i n M ar ch2 00 4, a nd i t se nt the m odi fi ed f or m to Burnettwh en his superv i si on f or do m es ti c ba tt ery e nde d. The rev is ed l et te r o m i tt ed an y re f er e nc e t o the r i g htt o v o t e . T hi s me a nttha tthe l e t t er d id n ott e l l t h e e x -p ris on er th at h e n ow enj oy s t h e “ b ig th ree” ci vi l r i ghts ( to vot e, hol d pu bl i c o ffi ce, and ser ve on j uries), w h ich took i t outs ide th e scop e of §921 (a)( 20). As we d i s c u s s i n B uc hm eier, I l l i noi s doe s no t depri ve fel o ns o f th e r i g ht to se r ve o n j ur i es , so o nl y v o ting and pu bl i c o ffi ces can be r est or ed orw ith hel d. 581 F. 3d at 564. U nl ess a com m unica ti on s ays t h at bo th o ftho se ri ghts h av e been re sto re d, how eve r, o m i ssi on o fa fi re ar m s r es er va ti o n do es no t ca nc elthe co nv i ct i o n’ s st atus as a vi ol ent fel ony. The M ar ch 200 4 for m ’ s o m iss ion o f any r efer ence to vot i ng m ust be wh y Burnett h as not d en ied thathi s co nvi cti on f ordom est i c ba tte ryi s a vi ol ent felon y. St i l l, the 2004 ve rs i on r em ai ned m i sl eadi ng be cause i t di d not dist i ngui sh const i tuti onalfro m st atut o r y o ffi ce s, di d no t co nt ain afi r ea r m s r es er va ti o n, a nd di d n o ts a y wh i c h c o nv i c t i o ns i tc o v e r e d.N o. 10

- 3664 9 A fterthi s co urt deci ded B uc hm eier, I l l i no i s al te r ed th e l ett e r a g a i n. S i nc e S e pt e mbe r 2 0 0 9 the De pa r t men to f Cor r ec ti o ns ha s se ntl et te r s th at d o no t r efert o the r i g ht to vot e a nd do t el l ex- pri sone rs t h at they ar e forbi dd en to po ss es s fi rear m s. Tha t’ s a bi gi m pr o ve m en t

—but probl em s r em ai n, be c ause eve n the Se ptem ber20 09 ve r si o n o fthe f o r m l etter do es no t di st i ng ui shc o ns ti tu

ti onalfro m st atuto ryo ffi ces. W orse , i t be gi ns by re fer ring to the d at e on wh i ch a ter m o fco nfinem ent o r supervi si on e nd ed but does notspeci fy whic h co nvi ct i o n o r c o nv i c t i o ns i tco ver s. I l l i no i s c a n a nd s ho ul d d o bett erto notify e x-pri sone rs wh i ch ci vi l r i ghts have been re sto re d on wh i ch co nvi cti ons, wh ile ensuring tha t they kn ow t hat thei r convi cti ons disqual i fy them fro m posse ssing fi re ar m s.

R EV ER S ED AN D R EMA NDE D F ORR ES EN T EN CI NG

6- 6- 11