## 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

- 1574 A LFR ED J. G ANT, al so known as A LFO RD J ONESG ANT, al so known as A .J. G ANT, P et it ioner-App el lant, v.
U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 07- CV-2095

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 17, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 10, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . A l fre d Gant w as f ound gu ilty o f one count o fposs ess i on o fa fi re ar m bya fel on in vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 9 22( g)(1). Because Gant had at l eas t th r ee pr i o rc o nv i ct i o ns f o ra v i o l en t fel o ny or a se r i o us drug o ffense, he was s entence d as a n A rm ed Caree r C rim ina l (A C C ) to 188 m ont hs of im p risonm en t. A fter a2 N o. 10

- 1574 f ai l ed appeal and a succes sful col l ate ra l att ack, Gan t w as re sente nced to 180 m onths ofi m pri sonm ent. Gant then fi l ed a hab eas co rpus p eti ti on a tta cki ng the r ese ntenci ng, thi s ti m e a rguingthathi s r ese ntenci ng co unselwas ineffective f or f ail ing to fi le a d irect app ea l a t Ga nt ’s re quest a n d fo r not chal l engi ng hi s cl ass i fi cati on a s a n A CC
. Gant al so clai m ed that the di str i ct c ourter re d w h en it re se n te n c ed h im as an A C C be c au se h is c ivil r i g ht s wer e r es tored f o rhi s th r ee pr i o rv i o l en t fel o ny con v i c t i o ns , ma k i ngtho s e c o nv i c t i o ns i na pp l i c ab l e f or A CC purposes . The di str i ct c ourtr ej ec te d Gant’ s cl ai m s, fi ndi ngGa nt n ei th ers ho wed tha t he di r ec te d hi s se ntencing c ounselto appealnorm et hi s bur den to est abli sh that his rig h t s w ere restored

. A fter the d istri ct cou rt gr an te d h im a c er tif i c at e o f ap p ea lab ility , G an t t im ely ap p ea led . B ec au se w e a gr ee th at G an t fa i l e d i n h is e vid e n t i a r y b u r d e n s , w e a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D T h e p r o c e d u r a lh i s t o r y o fth i s c a s e i s e x t e n s i v e . We w i l l pr o v i de a b r i e fo v e r v i e w o fthe c a s e b e f o r e pro c ee d in g t o th e fa c ts rele va n t t o G an t’s cu rre n t a p p ea l. I n 200 3, Gant was f ound gui l ty ofo ne co u nt o fposs ess i o n ofa fi r e a r m bya fe l o n, in v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 92 2( g ) ( 1)
. Be ca us e Gant ha d atl ea stthr ee pr i o rc o nvi cti ons f or a vi ol ent fel ony or a ser i ous d ru g offense , the di str i ct c ou rt concl ud ed that Gant quali fi ed as an AC C a nd s en te nc ed hi m t o 1 88 m ont hs o fi m pr i so n-N o. 10

- 1574 3

G ant’ s prior c onv ic ti ons u se d as pred ic ates for AC C clas si fic a- 1 t i on i nc lud e a 1 97 0 a rm ed vi ol en c e c onvi c t i on, a 19 74 ag gravated b att ery convict ion, a 1978 aggrava ted batte ry convict i on, an d a 1 98 5 dr ug c onvi c t i on. m ent. Gant appeal ed hi s co nv ict ion to thi s co urt,

1 cl ai m i ng tha t num er ous t ri aler ro rs ta i nted the gui l ty ve r di ct
. W e affi r m ed hi s co nv i ct i o n in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gant, 396 F.3d 906 ( 7th Cir. 2005). Ga ntthe n fi l e d a h ab e a s mo t i o n pu r s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 22 55
. Ga nta r g ue d hi s co uns elwas i ne ffec ti ve f o rf ai l i ng to chal l enge the convi cti ons und er l yi ng hi s cl ass i fi cati on as an A CC and f orf ai l i ng to r ai se a Bookeri ss u e in h is appeal

. Gant al so c laim ed the dist ri ct c ourter re d w hen th e cou rt, rather th a n t h e j ury, m ad e the f actu al dete rm i na ti o n r eg ar di nghi s pr i o rc o nv i ct i o ns . W hi le the d istri ct cou rt rejected m ost of his cl aim s, th e cou rt agr eed with Gan t th at hi s a pp el l ate co unselwas i neffecti ve for n ot ra i si ng a B o o k erch alle n ge . To rem ed y t h is defi ci ency, the dist ri c t c ou rto rder ed Gant re sente nced and app oi nted hi m new counself orr ese ntenci ng. On Augu st25, 2006 , the di st r i ctc o ur t he l d a r es en tencing hea ring and r educed G an t’s sente nce t o 180 m o nths

. Ga ntdi d no t br i ng a ny obj ec ti o ns a t th e r es en te nc i nghe ar i ng, no rdi d he a ppealf o l l o wi ngthe am ended j ud gm ent. Onlyo n Decem ber4, 20 06, o ver thre e m onths afterhi s r ese ntencing, di d G ant fi l e a n o t i c e o f ap p ea l. W e d ism iss ed th e a p p ea l as u n tim ely pu rs uant to Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4. Gant then br ought anothe r habeas m oti on under 2 8 U .S .C
. § 2 25 5, th e s u bj ec t o f h is c u rre n t a p p ea l. Inh is4 N o. 10

- 1574

m oti on, Gant ar gued that th e d istr i ct c ourter re d w hen i t res e nt e nc e d h i m a s a n ACC. Be c a us e h e r e c e i v e d a ri ghts re sto ra ti on l ett erfro m the I l l i noi s Depart m ent o f Cor r ec ti o ns , Ga ntc l ai m ed th athi s th r ee pr i o rv i o l en t fel ony conv ictions c o u ld n ot be cou nt ed f or A C C pu rpo s e s . Wi th tho s e c o nv i cti ons r e mov e d fr o m t he ACC cal cul ati on, he ha d onl y o ne pri ordrug convi cti on a s a pr o per l y c o unt ab l e o ffen se , l ea vinghi m t wo s hy o fthe thre e nec ess ar y forse ntenci ng as an AC C. To pro ve th is, Gant o ffer ed a l ett er, purport edl y fro m the I l l in ois D ep artm en t of C orrections , w hich stated t ha t G an t’s rights to hold con s titution al offi ces an d l icens es w ere re sto re d. G an t a l so cl ai m ed hi s r ese ntenci ng co unsel w as i neffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to chal l enge hi s AC C cl ass i fi cati o n a nd f o rno t fi l i ngan appea la fte rGa ntr eque st ed he do so

. The di str i ct c ourt, under the r easonabl e i m pressi on that Gant was chal l engi ng hi s in itia l se ntenci ng, d i s mi s s e d th e mo t i o n a s s uc c e s s i v e . O n a p p e a l, we va ca te d the di st r i ctc o urt’s j udg m en t an d r emande d the ca se t o the di st r i ctc o ur t f o ra s econd l o o k, ho l di ng that G ant’ s s eco nd m oti on was notsucce ssi ve because i t r el ate d to er ro rs atthe re cent re sente nci ng hea ring. Aft e rthe cas e wa s r e man de d, the g o v e r nme ntfi l e d a re sponse to Gant’s m oti on, questi oni ng the authenti ci ty of Gan t’s restoration letter and m oving for an eviden tiary he ar ing. G an t th ens o ug htt o c o r r ec t hi s § 22 55 mot i o n. I n hi s r evi sed m oti on, he claim ed the l ett erhe pr offer ed w as no t a ph otocop y of th e actu al l etter (b e c au se th ere w as no a vai l abl e photo copi eratthe pri son ), but a “m anual r epro du cti on. ” G ant then attached anotherl ett er to the r ev i se d m o ti o n. He c l ai m ed th i s l et te rwas the o neN o. 10

- 1574 5 he actual l y r ecei ved fro m t he Departm ent o fCor re cti o n s . Ga n t a l s o a t t a c h e d a b l u r r y d o c u me n t fr o m t he Illino is P ris o n e r R ev iew B oa rd , w h ich su gg es te d th at h is c itiz en sh ip righ ts w er e re st or e d . G an t c on tin u ed to ch all en g e th e tr ea tmento fa l lthr ee o fhi s pr i o rv i o l en t fel o ny c o nv i cti ons , b utno t hi s co nv i ct i o n fo rthe dr ug offense. J ud ge M cCuskey hel d a n evi denti ar y hear i ng to evaluate Gant’s l ett er and t o hear other ev i dence rel evantto hi s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unselcl ai m s. At the he ar i ng, Ga ntt es ti fi ed th athe rec ei ve d the I l l i noi s Dep ar tm ent o fCor re cti ons re sto ra ti on l ett er so m et i m e i n 2 00 1 an d tha t i t wa s t he o nl y do cumenthe re cei ved r ega rdi ng hi s civ i lr i ghts. Gant al so offer ed a n o th e r c o p y o f th e r e s t o r a t i o n l e t t e r a t th e h e a r i n g , o ne he cl ai m ed w as si gned by a par ol e s taffm em ber . Afte r he r ecei ved the re sto ra ti on l ett eri n 200 1, Gant te sti fi ed th athi s g i r l fr i en d, Rub y Ro dr i g ue z, t o o kthe l et te rt o the par o l e o ffi ce an d ha d i t si g ne d by an o ffi ce as si st an t. Ga nt als o testi fi ed to act s that he too k a fteral l ege dlyr eceivin g the Departm ent o fCor re cti ons l ett er, such a s re gis te rin g t o v ot e, w h ich h e c l a i m ed co rro b or at ed h is beli efthathi s r i ghts w er e r est or ed. Rodri guez offer ed si m i l arte sti m ony. F in all y, Gant co nceded that he had neverbeen se nt the Pri sone r Revi ew Boar d docum ent, an d th a t h e o b ta in ed it inth e c ou rs e o f p re p ar in g h is habe as mot i o n. Various s ta te e m pl o y ee s al so t es ti fi ed atthe he ar i ng ab ou t Gant’ s o ffer s o fpro of

. Kevi n H ear d, a t echni ci an atthe I l l i noi s Depa r tmento fCo r r ec ti o ns , t es ti fi ed th e6 N o. 10

- 1574

re st or at ion let te rs are form let te r s w ith ch ar ac te ris tic spa cinga nd f o r m at ting . The l et te r s st at e th atthe o ffe nd e r ’ s r i g ht s t o h o l d l i c e ns e s a nd o ffi c e a r e r e s t o r e d, an d are typ icall y signed and m ail ed to the p ar o le e’s l ast known add re ss. H ear d t est i fi ed that sta nd ar d p ra cti ce was t o s en d a l et te r, b utbecause the De par tment did notke ep a lis t ofl ett er s s ent o r copi es ofthe actual l e t t e r s , h e c o ul d n o tv e r i fy tha ta l e t t e rwa s g e ne r a t e d, signed , sent, or received

. H eard then ins p ecte d Ga nt ’s proffer ed l ett er s a nd , bas ed on inc on sistenci es between th e l et te r s th emse lve s an d b etwee n the l et te r s an d the Dep ar tm ent t em pla te, co ncl ud ed that they w er e no t authentic . K evin Tup y, o fthe I l l i noi s Pr i sone r Revi ew Bo ar d, a l so t es ti fi ed, s ta ti ng tha t th e Bo ar d do cument w as not sent to Gant, and t h at the “ci ti zenshi p” l anguage di d n o tc o nfi r m t ha ta l lo fh i s r i g ht s we r e r e s t o r e d. The di st r i ctc o ur t al so he ar d t es ti m o ny c o nc erni ng Gant ’ s st at ement s to hi s r es en te nc i ngc o uns el

. Ga nt claimed he ha d m etwi thhi s co uns elo nc e be f o r e th e re se n te n c in g h ea rin g a n d ad v i s ed h im th at h is c ivil ri ghts had been r est or ed as to som e of h i s pri orco nvi cti ons. Gant went on t o concede th at h e had notpro vid ed an y d oc u m en ts to co u n se l an d h ad n otas ke d h im to i nvest i gat e further

. G an t also st ate d that he had to l d co uns el th at he want ed to appe al th e resen te nc i ng or der. G an t’s counselthen tes ti fi ed. H e r epor ted that he di d not r ecal lGant ev er b rin gi ng up re sto ra ti on o f r i g hts. H e al so s ta te d tha t he a nd Ga ntdi sc us se d the possibi l i ty offi l i ng an app ea l, but afterhe a dvis ed Gant that ther e we re no m er i tor i ous i ssues to br i ng,N o. 10

- 1574 7 G an t d ecid ed not to ap p eal and did n ot d irect him otherw i se. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed Gant ’ s § 22 55 mot i o n, ho l di ng Gantdi d no t m ee t hi s bur den s o fpr o o ft o s ho w tha t he or de r e d h i s c o un s e lt o a pp e a lo rtha th i s c i v i lr i ghts w er e res tor ed. The co urt then g ra nted Gant a cer ti fi cate of a p p ea lab i l i t y reg ar d in g h is A C C cla ss ifica tio n an d h is in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l cla im s. G an t t im ely a pp e a l e d.

II. A NA LYSIS G an t a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t c o u r t e rre d in d en yin g h is § 22 55 mot i o n t o v ac at e, s eta si de, o rc o r r ec t hi s se nte nc e. Upon a deni alo fa § 2 25 5 m o ti o n, we r ev i ew the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s fi nd i ng s o f f a c t f o r c l e a r e r r o r a nd i ts r ul i ng s o fl a w deno vo . Sa nd o va l v. U nited Sta tes , 574 F.3d 847, 850 (7th C ir. 2009). Gant fi r s tc l a i ms hi s r e s e nt e nc i ngc o un s e lwa s i ne ffe cti ve f orf ai l i ng to fi l e a di re ct a pp ealat G an t’s r equest. W hen a defe nd ant a sks h is attor ney t o pu rs ue a dir ect ap p eal and the att orney doe s not d o so, i t i s p e r se i ne ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. Ka fo v. U ni t e d S ta tes , 46 7 F
. 3d 10 63 , 1 06 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. To s ucc eed on s ucha c laim , h o w e v er , a d efe n d an t m u st sh ow th at h e a c tu ally re q u es te d h is a tt or n ey file a n ap p ea l. See Cast e l l anos v. U nited Sta tes , 26 F. 3d 717, 719 ( 7th Cir
. 19 94) ( “ ‘ Request’ i s a n i m port ant ingre die nt i n thi s for m ula

. A law yer need not appeal unl ess the cl i ent wants t o pu rs ue that aven ue . ”).8 N o. 10

- 1574 A t the eviden tiary hear in g , t he district cou rt heard te st im on y fro m G a n t an d h is re se n te n c in g c ou n se l, H enryW el ch, t o d eterm i ne wh etherGant m ade such a r equest. Gant te sti fi ed that h e t ol d W el ch he wanted to appeal f ollow i ng the r ese ntenci ng. H e a l so poi nted to W el ch’s s tat em ents du ring the r ese ntenci ng hea ring, w here W el ch i nfo rm ed the cour t that he needed to preser ve c ertain i ssues atGant’ s be hest. W el ch then te st ified , st at in g th at G an t ne ve r or d er ed h im to a p p e a l. W el ch cl ai m ed that the tw o disc ussed the m att erafter th e he ar i ng, b uta fter h e to l d Ga nttha t th er e wer e no m eritori ou s issu es to ap p eal, Ga nt seem ed to un d erstan d and agree d n o t to app eal. Be li eving W elch’s accou n t m or e cr edibl e than Gant’s , the dist ri ct j ud ge f ound that Gant had neve r m ade a req u estforW el ch to appeal and, as such, thatGant’ s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce cl ai m l acke d m er i t. W e note that a district cou rt’s cred ibi lity find ings are en titl ed to “exc ep tional de ferenc e” a n d sh ou ld be overtu rn ed on ly w h en th ey are cle ar ly er ro n eo u s. Tezakv. U n i t e d S ta tes , 2 5 6 F
. 3 d 7 0 2 , 7 1 5

- 1 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
. G an t ar gues the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i n gs w er e incor re ct bec au se W elch m ad e statem en ts at th e evide nt iary hear i ng wh er e he att em pted to prese rv e ce rt ai n i ssues at Gant’s r equest. Gant cl ai m s that thi s, co u p led with hi s o wn te st i m o ny, pr o ve s he want ed to a ppea la nd spe ci fi ca l l y di r ec te d W el ch t o do s o . Butthe hi g hl y e xperi enced d istri ct j ud ge hear d that e vi dence, weighed it against W el ch’s acc ount o fev ents, and ul ti m ate ly f ound W el ch’s te sti m ony m or e cr edibl e. Ga n t now asks us to reevalu ate the d istri ct j ud ge’s cred ibi li ty d eterm in at ion, bu t a “c re d ibilit y d et er m in at ion is n ot a b as isN o. 10

- 1574 9

The s t atu te does no tappe ar t o c ont em pl at e re s t or at i on of 2 r i gh t s f ors e r i ou s dr ug o ffe nses . Onl y a “ c r i m e pu ni s habl e by (co n tin u ed ...) f orappel l ate r evi ew . ” See U nited St at e s v. Burke, 12 5 F. 3d 401, 404 ( 7th Cir
. 1997 )
. Because Gant has fail ed to m eethi s bur den to show that he re qu es te d W el ch to fi l e a n appeal, thi s ineffecti ve a ss i sta nce o fco unsel cl ai m l acks m er i t. Gant next cl ai m s hi s app el l ate co unselwas i neffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to inves ti gat e and chal l enge hi s AC C cl ass i fi cati o n. To e st ab l i shi neffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns el, Ga nt m u st sh ow th at h is c ou n se l w a s d efic ien t a n d th at th is d efic ien c y pr eju d i c e d h im
. St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U .S. 66 8 , 6 8 7 (19 84 ); B edn a rski v . U nited Sta tes , 48 1 F
. 3d 530, 53 5 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 7)
. A f ai l ure to est abl i sh ei ther d efic ien c e o r p rej u d ice is fat al t o G a n t ’s c laim

. Eddm onds v. P eters , 93 F. 3d 1307, 1313 (7th C ir. 1996). T o s h o w prejud ice, Ga nt argue s tha t he w as err o ne o us l y c l a s s i fi e d a s a n ACC p ur s ua ntto 18 U. S
. C. § 9 24 (e)(1 ) a n d t h at h is a tt or n ey ’s fa ilu re to ch all enge that sta tus har m ed hi m atres en tencing. U nd er § 9 24 (e)(1 ), a d efe n d an t c o n vic te d of be in g a felon in po s s e s s i o n o fa fi r e a r m mu s tb e s e n t e n c e d t o a min i m um offi ftee n yea rs ’ im p ri sonm ent i fthe defe nd ant has at least three prior conv ictions for a viol en t f e lo n y or a ser i ous d ru g offense. But a “ pri orco nvi cti on” does not i ncl ud e a co nvi cti on f orw h ich civi lr i ghts have been re st or ed , un les s “ th e re st or at ion of civ il righ ts ex p re ss ly provi des that the perso n m ay not shi p, tr anspor t, poss ess , or receive firearm s.” 18 U
. S. C
. § 921(a)( 20). 210 N o. 10

- 1574

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 im p rison m en t f or a term exceed ing on e y ear ” is su b jec t to the e xclus i on f or c onvi c t i ons f or whi c h a pe rs on has ha d ci vil rig hts resto red . 18 U .S. C . § 92 1(a)( 20 ). A nd on ly v iolen t felon ies, i n tur n, ar e defi ned as “c ri m e[ s ] puni s habl e by i m pri s onm en t fo r a te rm ex ce ed in g o n e y ea r.” 18 U .S.C . § 9 2 4 (e)(2 ). W e hav e desc ribed the excl usi on in 18 U
. S. C. § 9 21( a) ( 20) as an “a nt i-m ouset ra pp i ng pro vi si on. ” Buchmei e rv. U nited Sta tes , 581 F.3d 561 , 566 ( 7 t h C ir. 2009) (en ban c). The prov i si on pre vents a fel on fro m being l ull ed i nto a f al se sense o fse curi ty by a s tat e no ti ce that purpor ts to re sto re hi s r i ghts w i th ou t li m i tat i on, o nl y t o have th o se s ame c o nv i ct i o ns l at eru sed f o rfede r als en te nc i ng en h a n c em en t p u rp os es . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi t r ano , 40 5 F.3 d 50 6, 51 0 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v . Erw in , 9 02 F. 2d 510, 51 2- 13 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90)
. To e xcl ud e a co nvi cti on fr o m c o unt i nga s anACC pre di ca te , ho wev er, a de fen dan t m ust s how , bya preponde ra n c e ofthe evi dence, that h is rig h ts w er e re st or ed

. Vit r ano , 40 5 F
. 3d at 509. To m eet t h is b urden i n the dist ri ct c ourt, Gant cl ai m ed that he r ecei ved a noti ce fr om the St ate thatfully r est or ed hi s ci vi lr i ghts. Duri ng the ev i denti ar y hearing, J ud ge M cCuskey h ear d G ant’ s a nd Rodri guez’ s t est i m ony re g ar di nghi s r ec ei pt o fthe l et te r, a l o ngwi tht es ti m o ny fr o m the g o ve r nm en t sh o wi ngtha t th e l et te r s Gant o ffer ed as pr o o fo fr ec ei p t w er e f o r g er i es . Ba se d o n inco ns i st en ci es b etwe enGa nt ’ s an d Ro dr i g ue z’ s te st i m o ny and the co ncl usi ons ofthe gov er nm en t w itness es that Gant’s l ett er s w ere f ake , J ud ge M cCuskey f ound thatN o. 10

- 1574 11 Gant f ai l ed to m eethi s bur den to show that he re cei ved a l ett er . Thi s m ade hi s AC C cl ass i fi cati on a pp ropri ate a n d d i d a wa y w i th h i s i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m. On app eal, Gant co nti nues to ar gue th at “the S tat e o f I l l i no i s ful l y r es to r ed al lo f[ hi s] c ivi l righ ts whenhe r ec ei ved a no ti ce fr o m the S ta te , ” an d a s su ch, the dist ri ct c ourter re d. Because Gant a rgues that hi s a ctual re c eip t o f th e le tt e r r e s t or ed h is rig h ts , w e fo c u s s ole ly on w h et h er h e s h ow ed , by a p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vidence, thathe re cei ved a l ett er . W e no te, however, that we ha ve no t squa r ely a ddr es se d a t whatpo i nt

— ei ther di s pa t c h o rr ece i pt

— a s tat e no ti ce e ffecti vel y r est or es c ivil rig h ts for p u rp os es of 1 8 U .S.C . § 92 1(a )(20 ). C o m pa re B uc hm eier, 58 1 F
. 3d at 563- 64 ( “[ N ] o m att erwh at sta te l aw pr o vi des , a pe r so n who ha s r ec ei ve d a ‘ par do n, expun gem ent, o r re sto ra ti on o fci vi lr i ghts’ i s no t t re ate d as c o nv i ct ed f o rfede r alpur po se s ‘ unless suc h pa r do n, ex p u n ge m en t, or re st or at ion of civ il righ ts ex p re ss ly provi des that the per son m ay not shi p, tr anspor t, p os se ss , or rec eiv e fire ar m s.’ ”), a nd Vit r ano , 40 5 F
. 3d at 51 0, w ith Buchmeier, 58 1 F. 3d at 566 ( “Even i fa sta te d ee m s a p er so n ‘co n vic te d ’ for p u rp os es of its d om es tic law , i f it se n d s a d oc u m en t t h at se em s t o re st or e a ll c i v i lr i g ht s the c o nv i c t i o n do e s n o tc o un tf o rfe der alpurposes unl ess the docum ent warns the per son ab ou t a ling er in g firea rm s d isa b ility .”), and E rwin , 90 2 F. 2d at 512- 13. Gant’s ev i dence ofactual r ecei pt w as shakyatbes t. W hi l e Gant c laim ed that he r ecei ved one l ett er, he pr od uc ed m ultiple ver sions of this l etter, al l of w hich w ere12 N o. 10

- 1574 i nconsi ste nt and cont ai ne d err or s that l ed the Dep ar tm ent o fC or recti ons em plo yee to co ncl ud e that they w er e inauthenti c. By p roducing i nauthenti c ( and possibl y fra ud ule nt) l ett er s, Gan t dam age d his cr edibi l i ty, m aking hi s l ate r tes tim on y that he re cei ved a l ett er su spe ct
. Inc o ns i st en ci es b etwee n h i s te st i m o ny a nd Ro dri g ue z ’ s t e s t i mon y fur the ru nd e r mi ne d h i s c r e dibi l i ty. M or eov er, wh i l e the Depart m ent e m plo yee tes ti fi ed that sta nd ar d practi ce was t o se n d a r est or ati on l ett erafterparo l e w as com ple te, the em plo yee co uld not v e r i fy tha ta l e t t e rwa s a c t ua l l y di s pa t c he d a nd r e c e i v e d. G an t’ s dam age d cre dibi l i ty and the weakness o fh is evi dence l ed the dist ri ct c ourtto concl ud e that he f ai l ed to sh ow re c e i p t o fa n ot ice , an d w e s ee n o c lea r er ro r in th is fin d in g. Sin c e G an t d i d n o t m ee t h is b u rd en , his A CC cl ass ificat i on s tands and hi s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce cl ai m falls fo r w ant o fprej ud i ce. See Strick la nd, 466 U
. S. at 697. Gant fi nal l y a rgues tha t th e di str i ct c ourter re d w hen i t cl as si fi ed hi m a s anACC. Thi s cl ai m i s uns ucc es sful for a n u m b er of re as o n s . F i r s t, G an t d id n otbr in g t h is cl ai m o n dir ect appeal ; he ha s n ot es tabl i shed cause and prej ud i ce, so h e m ay n ot proce ed w i th i t under § 2 2 5 5. See M elvin v. U nited Sta tes , 78 F. 3d 327, 32 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6)
. Secon d, e ve n i fGa ntdi d s ho w ca us e an d p rej u d ice , f o r t h e re as on s d isc u ss ed ab ov e, h e is u n ab le to e st ab l i shtha t th e di st rict co ur t er r ed i n s en te nc i ng hi m a s a n ACC.N o. 10

- 1574 13 III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe f or ego i ng r easons, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct co ur t’ s den i alo fGa nt ’ s § 22 55 mot i o n.

12- 10- 10