FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 8, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12987 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -000 54 -C R -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G E O R G E A N D R E A X A M , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 8, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

G e o r g e A n d r e A x a m ap p e a ls h is 1 8 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e , im p o s e d p u r s u a n t to the A rm ed C ar ee r C ri m i nal A ct(“ A C C A ”) , 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e ), for posse ss i on of a f i r e a r m by a c onvi c t e d f

e l on. A xa m a r gue s tha ttw o s t a t e bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons u sed t o en h an ce h i s sen t en ce u n d er th e A C C A w ere p resu m p t i v el y v o i d b ecau se c o u n s e l in th o s e c a s e s r e n d e r e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . A x a m r a is e dth is c la im be f or e the di s tr i c tc our ti n pa r t , pr i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, a nd i n pa r t , i n a m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n . H o w e v e r , A x a m ’s c h a lle n g e f a ils b e c a u s e h e d id n o t s u f f ic ie n tly a s s e r ta ny f

a c t s be f or e the di s tr i c tc our tt o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe pr i orc onvi c t i ons w e r e p r e s u m p tiv e ly v o id . M o r e o v e r , in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l w a s n o t a p r o p e rle g a l b a s is f

o rf in d in g th a t s u c h c o n v ic tio n s w e r e p r e s u m p tiv e ly v o id . T here fore , w e A F F IR M A xam ’ s s ent ence . I . B AC KG RO UN D I n D e c e m be rof

2001, a f

e de r a l gr a nd j ury i ndi c t e d A xa m on one c ountof pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m by a c onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) . R 1 - 1 a t 1 - 2 . A x a m p le d n o t g u ilty , b u t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d h im gui l ty a ta be nc h tr i a l i n J ul y of 2002. R 1- 6, 48. P r i ort o the i ni t i a l s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, a pr oba t i on of f i c e rpr e pa r e d a p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”), w h i ch i n i t i al l y d et ai l ed th e o ffen se cond uct . P S I ¶¶ 4 -9. A xam ’ s daugh t er , Ja sm i ne A xam (“ Ja sm i ne”) , approached3

A xa m ’ s hous e i n A t l a nt a , G e or gi a on 3 D e c e m be r2001, w he n he rboy f r i e nd, A ntre vo n H ay es , w ai t ed i n a vehi cl e i n frontof the ho use. Id. ¶ 5 . Ja sm i ne began a r gui ng w i th A xa m out s i de the hous e , a nd A xa m w e nti ns i de the hous e a nd re turned o ut si de w i th a gu n. Id. A xam w al ked t ow ar ds H ay es ’ s vehi cl e, po i nt ed the gun a tH a y e s , a nd f

i r e d one ortw o s hot s i n H a y e s ’ s di r e c t i on. I d. H a y e s dr ove aw ayand n ot i fi ed a pol i ce offi ce r, and w hen the offi ce r a rr i ved atthe ho use, A xam fl ed i nt o a w oo ded area . Id. O ff i ce rs arri ved atA xam ’ s hou se on 4 D ec em ber 2 0 0 1 w i th a w arran tfo r h i s arresto n ch arg es o f ag g rav at ed assau l tan d reck l ess c onduc t . I d. ¶ 6. A xa m e ve ntua l l y a dm i tt e d hi s i de nt i ty , w a i ve d hi s r i ght s , a nd a n s w e r e d q u e s tio n s r e g a r d in g th e s h o o tin g . I d . I n the i nt e r vi e w , A xa m s t a t e d tha the ha d be e n a r gui ng w i th J a s m i ne i n f r ont of the ho use bec ause he di d n otw antH ay es atthe ho use. Id. ¶ 7 . A xam expl ai ned thathe and H ay es go ti nt o a fi gh ta f ew m on ths ea rl i eri n w hi ch A xam suff er ed l ac er at i on s t o h i s hea d and a broken foo t , and charges r el at ed t o the fi gh tw er e pe ndi ng a ga i ns tH a y e s . I d. A xa m t ol d pol i c e tha ta f t e rhe r e tr i e ve d the gun, he onl y f i r e d i ti n the a i r . I d. ¶ 8. A xa m c ons e nt e d t o a s e a r c h of hi s hous e , a nd po l i ce foun d a . 38 ca l i ber f i re arm w i th fi ve roun ds i nsi de, i nd i ca t i ng thati tw as f i r e d onc e . I d.Without reg ard to the a rmed c are er criminal sentencingcalculations, the PS Icalculated 1 Axam’s offenselevel under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)( 2), which resulted in a ba se off ense level of 24. I d. ¶ 12. The PSIapplied a 4-point enhancement pursuant to § 2K2.1(b) (5), which resulted in a total offenselevel of 28. Id. ¶¶ 13, 17. His criminal history cate g ory initially was set at V. I d. ¶ 31. Be causethe ACCA applied, those c alculations were disre g arde d. 4 A c c or di ng t o the P S I , A xa m w a s c onvi c t e d of f ourpr i orf

e l oni e s , i nc l udi ng a c h a r g e o f

p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e in 1 9 8 3 , tw o s e p a r a te b u r g la r ie s in 1 9 9 4 , a n d a c o c a in e p o s s e s s io n c h a r g e in 2 0 0 1 . I d . ¶¶ 9 , 2 2 , 2 4 - 2 6 . T he P S I s t a t e d tha tA xa m qua l i f i e d a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l w i thi n the m e a ni ng of U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 4, du e t o h i s 198 3 d rug con vi ct i on and tw o 1 99 4 b urgl ary co n v i ct i o n s. Id . ¶ 3 2 . T h erefo re, th e P S I reco m m en d ed th atA x am ’ s b ase o ffen se

1 le v e l b e s e t a t 3 4 , p u r s u a n t to § 4 B 1 .4 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) , b e c a u s e h e u s e d th e f ir e a r m in conn ec t i on w i th a cr i m e of vi ol ence . Id. In addi t i on , A xam ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory c a t e gory w a s s e ta tV I , pur s ua ntt o § 4B 1. 4( c ) . I d. ¶ 34. T he ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of 34 a nd c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory V I y i e l de d a G ui de l i ne s i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge of 262 t o 327 m onths . I d. a t15. A tthe i ni t i al se nt enci ng hear i ng i n 2 00 3, the di stri ctcourtfoun d that A x am ’ s p ri o r fel o n y co n v i ct i o n s w ere n o tseri o u s d ru g o ffen ses o r v i o l en tfel o n i es, unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) , a nd thus , he w a s nots ubj e c tt o the 15- y e a rm i ni m um m andat ory s ent ence re qu i re d b y the A C C A . R 4 at4-5. A ft erfi nd i ng thatA xam w a s nota n a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l , the di s tr i c tc our ts e thi s of f e ns e l e ve l a t12 a ndAxam also argued that his 2001 felony drugconviction was not a serious drugoffense, 2 under 18 U .S.C. § 924. R2-77 at 3-5. That conviction is not at issue on appe al. 5 c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory a tI I I , w hi c h y i e l de d a G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 15 t o 21 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t . Id . at5 -7 , 1 1 . T h e co u rtsen t en ced A x am t o 1 8 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd thr e e y e a r s of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . I d. a t15. T he di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d j udgm e nton A xa m ’ s s e nt e nc e , a nd the go vernm entappeal ed. R 1-57 , 58 . In 20 04 , w e vac at ed and rem anded for res e nt e nc i ng. R 1- 65 a t10; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A xa m , 91 F e d. A ppx. 655 ( 11th C i r . J a n. 30, 2004) ( t abl e ) ( “ A xa m I ” ) . W e he l d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d unde rthe A C C A i n f

i ndi ng tha tA xa m ’ s tw o bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons di d notc ons t i tut e vi ol e nt f e l oni e s , a nd i te rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha thi s 1983 drug c onvi c t i on w a s nota s e r i ous drug c onvi c t i on. I d. a t8- 10. O n r e m a nd, pr i ort o r e - s e nt e nc i ng, A xa m f i l e d a m e m or a ndum i n s uppor tof hi s obj e c t i on t o the P S I ’ s c l a s s i f i c a t i on of

hi m a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l . R 2- 77 at1-2. H e a rgued, no tw i thst andi ng ou r rul i ng i n A xam I, thathi s tw o b urgl ary co n v i ct i o n s w ere n o tv i o l en tfel o n i es, u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 . Id . at3 -1 1 . H e al so 2 a s s e r te d th a t o n e o f

h is b u r g la ry c o n v ic tio n s s h o u ld n o t b e c o n s id e r e d in det erm i ni ng w hether he w as an arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal because he r ec ei ved i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l i n r e ga r d t o tha tc onvi c t i on. I d. a t11. H e di d not expl ai n h ow the as si st ance of coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve i n thatca se . S ee i d. A xamPrior to re -s e ntenc ing , a

se c on d atto rn ey , T ony

Axam, entere d a

n a pp e ara nc eon behalf 3 of Axam. R2-76; R5 at 2. Tony Axam is the def

endant’ s brother. PSI¶ 40. Although Ax am argued at re-sentencingthat the proof was insufficient to establish that 4 his prior burg lary

convictions were g eneric burg laries f or the purpose s of the ACCA, he doe s not argue that point on appeal. See R5 at 8-22. Thus, he ha s abandone d the issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). Acc ording ly , this Court need not consider whether

the Supreme Court’s de cision in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct . 1254, 161 L .Ed.2d 205 (2005), a brog ated the determination in United States v. Adams, 91 F.3d 114, 116 ( 11th Cir. 1996), that information in a PSIwas suff icient to establish that a prior burg lary conviction was a

g eneric burg lary

conviction. 6 s ubm i tt e d a s e c ond s e nt e nc i ng m e m or a ndum w he r e he m a de a r gum e nt s not r e l e va nton appe a l . R 2- 78 a t1- 21. A tthe re -s ent enci ng hear i ng on 12 June 20 07 , A xam i ni t i al l y m ov ed for a 60- da y c ont i nua nc e of

the he a r i ng be c a us e he ha d f i l e d tw o w r i t s of

habe a s c orpus i n s t a t e c our tc ha l l e ngi ng hi s tw o bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons . R 5 a t4- 5. C ouns e l f or A x a m s ta te d th a t th e “b a s is o f th e w r it I th in k s ta n d s o n r e a l s tr o n g le g a l g r o u n d s ,” 3 buthe di d note l abor a t e a ny f ur the ron tha tpoi nt . I d. a t4. T he s e nt e nc i ng j udge de ni e d the m ot i on f

ora c ont i nua nc e . I d. a t7- 8. N e xt , the di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de r e d A xa m ’ s obj e c t i on t o the c l a s s i f i c a t i on of hi s bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons a s vi ol e ntf e l oni e s . I d. a t8- 12. A f t e rc ons i de r i ng the i nform at i on i n the P S I a nd ce rt i fi ed copi es of the conv i ct i on s, the courtfoun d that the e vi de nc e w a s s uf

f i c i e ntt o c l a s s i f

y the c onvi c t i ons a s vi ol e ntf e l oni e s , unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) , ove rA xa m ’ s r e l a t e d obj e c t i ons . I d. a t17- 22. T he c our tf ound 4 thatA xam ’ s off

ense l evel w as 34 and h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w as V I, w hi chAxam st ated that heattache d to the motion for rec onsideration the statehabea s petitions 5 he filed attackingthe burg lary convictions, but they

do not appea

r in the re cord. SeeR2-86. The rec ord does not indicatecurrent status of the ha beas petitions , nor does Axam provide a ny information in that reg ard in his appe llate brief . 7 r e s ul t e d i n a G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 262 t o 327 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . I d. a t 2 6 . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tth e n c o n s i d e r e d th e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u me n t s o n th e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. Id. at27 -30. A xam re qu es t ed the m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence of 180 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , w he r e a s the gove rnm e ntr e c om m e nde d a w i thi nG ui del i nes r ange se nt ence . Id. at30 -31. T he courtappl i ed a dow nw ar d v ar i ance a nd s e nt e nc e d A xa m t o the 180- m onth m a nda t ory m i ni m um t e r m , a l ong w i th one y e a rof s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . I d. a t32- 33. T he c our tc r e di t e d A xa m w i th the t i m e he a l r e a dy s e r ve d i n pr i s on a nd on s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . I d. a t33- 34. A xa m m ove d f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the or a l l y - a nnounc e d s e nt e nc e on 15 J une 2007, e xpr e s s l y a r gui ng f orthe f i r s tt i m e tha thi s s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o the A C C A w as base d o n v oi d p re di ca t e off ense s. R 2-86 at3. S peci fi ca l l y, he ar gu ed th a t h is tw o 1 9 9 4 b u r g la ryc o n v ic tio n s w e r e v o id b e c a u s e th e y w e r e o b ta in e d in v io la tio n o f

h is r ig h ts to e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l a n d d u e p r o c e s s . I d . a t 3 - 4 . Ho we v e r , h e d i d n o te l ab o r a t e o n th e f a c tu a l b a s i s f

o rth a ta r g u m e n t . S e e i d . He 5 al so ar gu ed thathi s burgl ary c on vi ct i on s di d n otconst i tut e vi ol entfe l on i es un der th e A C C A . I d . a t 4 - 6 .Axam does not assert any error on appe al re g ardingthe denial of his moti on for 6 rec onsideration, and thus, hehas aba ndoned the issue. SeeSepulveda, 401 F .3d at 1228 n.2. Ev e n a ssuming , a

rguendo, that hepre serv e d th eissue , th edis tric t c ourt did no t a bu seits discretion in deny

ing themotion becauseit was without leg al merit for the same reasons discussed below. By not assertingany

error re g ardingthe 1983 drugfelony, used to classify Axam as an 7 arme d career

criminal, he ha s abandone d the issue on appe al. See Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2. 8 O n 20 J une 2007, the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d j udgm e nton the c onvi c t i on a nd s e n te n c e w ith o u t a d d r e s s in g th e m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n , a n d A x a m tim e ly appe a l e d the j udgm e nton 29 J une 2007. R 2- 87, 88. I n a n or de re nt e r e d on 8 J a n u a ry 2 0 0 8 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . S u p p . R - 9 8 . T he c our tnot e d tha tA xa m r e l i e d upon the s a m e a r gum e nt s tha the pr e s e nt e d a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, w hi c h the c our ta l r e a dy r e j e c t e d, a nd no ba s i s f

orgr a nt i ng the m ot i on e xi s t e d. I d. a t3. O n 15 J a nua ry 2008, A xa m t i m e l y f i l e d a not i c e of ap p e a l d e s ig n a tin g th e o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . S u p p . R - 9 9 . 6 I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , A xa m a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha thi s 1994 b u r g l a ry c o n v i c t i o n s q u a l i f i e d a s v i o l e n tf

e l o n i e s f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

th e A CCA because tho se conv i ct i on s w er e pre sum pt i vel y voi d. S peci fi ca l l y, he ar gu es that 7 thos e tw o c onvi c t i ons w e r e obt a i ne d i n vi ol a t i on of hi s r i ght s t o e f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l a nd due pr oc e s s , a nd he a tt a c ke d e a c h of thos e c onvi c t i ons throu gh st at e c ou rthabeas pet i t i on s. A xam as se rt s thatcoun se l for the bu rgl ary9

c onvi c t i ons w a s i ne f

f e c t i ve be c a us e c ouns e l f a i l e d t o: ( 1) s e e k di s m i s s a l of the i ndi c tm e nt s ; ( 2) m e e tw i th A xa m a nd di s c us s the c a s e ; ( 3) i nve s t i ga t e the f a c t s of th e c as e; (4 ) in fo rm A x am o f h is rig h t t o ap p ea l; o r ( 5 ) m o v e to w ith d ra w A x am ’s gui l ty pl e a s , appe a l the c onvi c t i ons ors e nt e nc e s , orc ol l a t e r a l l y a tt a c k the conv i ct i on s or s ent ence s. H e a rgues thathe pl ed gu i l ty t o the bu rgl ary c harges w hen h e w as ef

fe ct i vel y un-coun se l ed and there fore , the conv i ct i on s w er e pr e s um pt i ve l y voi d. W e r e vi e w de novo w he the ra pa r t i c ul a rof f e ns e c ons t i tut e s a vi ol e ntf e l ony u n d erth e A C C A . U n it ed S tates v . R ain ey , 3 6 2 F .3 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “A se nt enci ng i ss ue no tra i se d i n the di stri ctcourti s r evi ew ed for pl ai n err or. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R i char dson , 16 6 F . 3d 13 60 , 13 61 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). W e r evi ew the di stri ct court ’ s deni al of a m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on for a n abu se of di sc re t i on . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S i m m s, 38 5 F . 3d 13 47 , 13 56 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T he A C C A re qu i re s am i ni m um se nt ence of 15 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm entfor a de f e nda ntw ho vi ol a t e s 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) , a nd ha s thr e e pr e vi ous vi ol e ntf e l ony ors e r i ous drug of

f e ns e c onvi c t i ons . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) . S e c t i on 4B 1. 4 of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes i m pl em ent s the A C C A . S ee U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 4(a) . B urgl ary const i tut es a vi ol entfe l on y f or the pu rposes of § 9 24 (e ). 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e ). [A ] pers on has bee n con vi ct ed of bu rgl ary f or the pu rposes of a § 9 2 4 ( e ) e n h a n c e m e n t if h e is c o n v ic te d o f

a n y c r im e , r e g a r d le s s o f its10

e xa c tde f i ni t i on orl abe l , ha vi ng the ba s i c e l e m e nt s of unl a w f ul or u n p r iv ile g e d e n try in to , o rr e m a in in g in , a b u ild in g o rs tru c tu r e , w ith i nt entt o com m i ta c ri m e. T a y l orv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 495 U . S . 575, 599, 110 S . C t . 2143, 2158, 109 L . E d. 2d 607 ( 1990) ; s e e a l s o B e ga y v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , __ U . S . __, 128 S . C t . 1581, 1588, 170 L . E d. 2d 490 ( 2008) ( hol di ng tha ta f e l ony dr i vi ng unde rthe i nf l ue nc e c onvi c t i on w as n o ta v i o l en tfel o n y u n d er th e A C C A b ecau se i td i ffered fro m o th er cri m es, such as bu rgl ary, expl i ci t l y l i st ed i n § 92 4(e) (2)( B )( i i )) . In general , a def

endantm ayno tcol l at er al l y a tt ac k, du ri ng a f eder al s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, a pr i orc onvi c t i on be i ng us e d t o e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e unde rthe A C C A . C us t i s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 511 U . S . 485, 497, 114 S . C t . 1732, 1739, 128 L .E d .2 d 5 1 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T h e lo n e e x c e p tio n to th is ru le a llo w s a d e f e n d a n t to chal l enge a pri or conv i ct i on on the basi s thati ti s “ pres um pt i vel y voi d. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R om an, 98 9 F . 2d 11 17 , 11 20 (11th C i r. 19 93 ). In order t o chal l enge an ea rl i erconv i ct i on on thi s bas i s, a def endantm ust“ suff

i ci ent l y a ss ert [] fa ct s that show thatan ea rl i erconv i ct i on i s ‘ pres um pt i vel y voi d. ’ ” I d. ; se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v . J a c k s o n , 5 7 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( f a ilu r e to s u f

f ic ie n tly a s s e r t f

a c ts show i ng thatw ai ver of r i gh tt o cou nsel w as no tkn ow i ng , i nt el l i gent , and v ol un t ary w as fa t al t o d ef

endant ’ s c hal l enge t o a pri or conv i ct i on atse nt enci ng ).11

A c o n v ic tio n is p r e s u m p tiv e ly v o id , a n d th u s , c a n n o t b e c o n s id e r e d in s e nt e nc i ng a de f

e nda nt , i f

the de f e nda ntw a s c onvi c t e d of a f e l ony w i thoutha vi ng c ouns e l appoi nt e d. S e e C us t i s , 511 U . S . a t495, 114 S . C t . a t1738. H ow e ve r , the S upr e m e C our tde t e r m i ne d tha t“ f a i l ur e t o appoi ntc ouns e l f ora n i ndi ge nt de f e nda ntw a s a uni que c ons t i tut i ona l de f e c t , ” a nd i te xpr e s s l y de c l i ne d t o e xpa nd a def endant ’ s r i gh tt o col l at er al l y a tt ac k p ri or conv i ct i on s use d for se nt ence en h an cem en t s b eyo n d th atsi tu at i o n . Id . at4 9 6 , 1 1 4 S . C t . at1 7 3 8 . S p eci fi cal l y, the C our the l d tha ta de f e nda ntc oul d notc ol l a t e r a l l y a tt a c k a taf e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng a pr i orc onvi c t i on, us e d t o e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e unde r§ 924( e ) , ba s e d on the deni al of ef

fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l or the entryof a gui l ty pl eathatw as notknow i ng a nd i nt e l l i ge nt . I d. T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t err , o r c o m m itp lain er ro r, in en h an cin g A x am ’s s e n te n c e u n d e rth e A C C A b a s e d , in p a r t, o n h is tw o s ta te b u r g la ryc o n v ic tio n s . A l tho ug h A xam bri ef

l y a ss ert ed, i n a se nt enci ng m em orandu m , thathe w as deni ed e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l a nd due pr oc e s s i n r e ga r d t o thos e c onvi c t i ons , he never s peci fi ca l l y r equest ed a f i nd i ng by the courtthattho se conv i ct i on s w er e pr e s um pt i ve l y voi d pr i ort o the i m pos i t i on of hi s s e nt e nc e . T o the e xt e nttha the pres erved any err or i n thatre gard, hi s c hal l enge on appeal m ustfa i l . F i rs t , A xam ne ve ra s s e r t e d a ny f

a c t s orpr e s e nt e d a ny e vi de nc e , pr i ort o ordur i ng theAs noted above , supra note 4, Ax am aba ndoned any

challeng e to the district cour t’s 8 denial of his motion for re consideration. He appa rently supported that motion by attachingthe habea s petitions he used to challeng e his burg lary convictions. Even a ssuming, arguendo, that the habe as petitions demonstrated inef fec tive assistanceof counse l, his claim that ineffe ctive assistanceof counse l rendered his burg lary convictions presumptively void was without leg al merit, as discussed a

bove. 12 s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, t o de m ons tr a t e tha thi s c ha l l e nge s t o the bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons w er e m er i t ori ou s. T here fore , he fa i l ed t o carryhi s burden o f dem on stra t i ng that the s e c onvi c t i ons w e r e pr e s um pt i ve l y voi d. S e e R om a n, 989 F . 2d a t1120. S ec on d, A xam w as prec l ud ed fr om col l at er al l y a tt ac ki ng the pri or bu rgl ary c onvi c t i ons on the ba s e s tha the a s s e r t e d – i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l a nd deni al of du e proces s – because tho se grou nd s f el l ou t si de the l i m i t ed un -c ou nsel ed c onvi c t i on e xc e pt i on t o the ba ron s uc h a tt a c ks . S e e C us t i s , 511 U . S . a t496, 114 8 S .C t. a t 1 7 3 8 . I I I . CONCL US I ON F o rth e r e a s o n s s ta te d ab o v e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly s e n te n c e d A x a m to 18 0 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entun der the A C C A . A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F I R M.