United States v. Arnold Burleson, 815 F.3d 170

In 2012 Burleson was found in possession of a .357 Magnum and indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and sentenced under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on multiple North Carolina felony convictions from 1964–1985.
At plea and sentencing he and counsel conceded prior convictions qualified; he received the 15‑year ACCA mandatory minimum and did not appeal.
Months later he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting actual innocence because North Carolina had restored his civil and firearm rights (by operation of state law) in 1993, before the 2012 arrest, and therefore his prior convictions could not serve as § 922(g)/§ 924(e) predicates under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).
The government conceded restoration occurred but argued the relevant inquiry is state law in effect at the time of the federal arrest (2012), and a 1995 North Carolina statute had subsequently restricted firearm possession by felons, reviving the predicates.
The district court denied relief relying on unpublished Fourth Circuit decisions; the court of appeals reversed, holding § 921(a)(20)’s "unless such restoration . . . expressly provides" language requires looking to state law at the time the civil rights were restored.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 921(a)(20)’s "unless such . . . restoration . . . expressly provides" requires courts to look to state law in effect at time of civil‑rights restoration or at time of § 922(g) arrest	Burleson: look to state law at time of restoration (1993); his restoration did not expressly restrict firearms, so prior convictions are not predicates	Government: look to state law at time of arrest (2012); the 1995 NC statute restricted felons’ firearm rights and thus revived predicates	Court: look to law in effect at time of restoration; post‑restoration restrictions do not revive predicates under § 921(a)(20)
Procedural default / collateral relief: whether § 2255 is available given Burleson failed to raise the issue on direct appeal	Burleson: claim is actual innocence (no qualifying predicate existed), so § 2255 is available despite default	Government: impliedly relied on default but did not dispute actual innocence route	Court: treated claim as actual innocence; § 2255 relief appropriate and conviction vacated

United States v. Haynes, 961 F.2d 50 (4th Cir. 1992) (§ 921(a)(20) requires reference to state law at time of restoration; post‑restoration enactments do not revive predicates)
United States v. Osborne, 262 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2001) (statute governs by law at time of restoration; "such restoration" references restoration itself)
United States v. Cardwell, 967 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1992) (look to law at time of restoration; present tense "expressly provides" limits inquiry to then‑existing law)
United States v. Norman, 129 F.3d 1393 (10th Cir. 1997) (adopts time‑of‑restoration rule for § 921(a)(20) analysis)
United States v. Wind, 986 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1993) (same conclusion: law at restoration controls)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (describes actual‑innocence exception to procedural default in collateral attack)