Gant v. United States
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25207
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Gant was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal (ACC) due to three or more qualifying prior convictions to 188 months.
- On direct appeal, his conviction was affirmed; later §2255 proceedings led to resentencing to 180 months after a successful collateral attack on counsel.
- Gant challenged his ACC status and argued civil-rights restoration affected prior convictions for ACC purposes.
- At resentencing, he contended his rights-restoration letters were authentic and that his resentencing counsel failed to file an appeal on his instruction.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found the restoration letters unauthentic, and rejected his claims; the district court denied relief and granted a certificate of appealability.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviews factual findings for clear error and questions of law de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gant's resentencing counsel was ineffective for not filing an appeal on his instruction. | Gant asserts he directed an appeal. | Welch did not receive a direct instruction to appeal. | No; no proof Gant asked for an appeal, so ineffective-assistance claim fails. |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging ACC classification. | Counsel should challenge ACC based on restored rights. | Evidence showed restoration letters were unauthentic; no prejudice shown. | No; district court’s findings supported that restoration was not proven, so no prejudice. |
| Whether civil-rights restoration excludes a prior conviction from ACC counting under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20). | Restoration letter fully restored civil rights, excluding the convictions. | Restoration proof failed; letters were unauthentic. | Gant failed to prove receipt of a valid restoration letter; ACC classification stands. |
| Whether Gant proved actual receipt of a restoration letter necessary to exclude convictions under § 921(a)(20). | Gant received a restoration letter. | Letters produced were inconsistent and unauthentic. | No clear error in finding no receipt; letters were unreliable, so restoration not proven. |
| Whether district court erred in counting ACC predicates given the restoration issue or in sentencing as ACC. | Errors in ACC counting and resentencing. | ACC calculation proper under record. | No reversible error; failure to show direction to appeal does not invalidate ACC classification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kafo v. United States, 467 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2006) (per se ineffective assistance when defendant requests appeal and counsel does not file)
- Castellanos v. United States, 26 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Request” is required for appeal; counsel need not appeal without client direction)
- Buchmeier v. United States, 581 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (anti-mousetrapping; restoration does not exclude unless expressly limited against firearms)
- Vitrano v. United States, 405 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2005) (restoration must be proven to exclude a conviction for ACC purposes)
- Erwin v. United States, 902 F.2d 510 (7th Cir. 1990) (restoration letters considerations for federal firearms status)
- Tezak v. United States, 256 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2001) (credibility limits appellate review of district court findings)
- Sandoval v. United States, 574 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing § 2255 denials and factual findings)