The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge:
On a limited remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, this Court dismissed petitioner Brett Stallings's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (Doc. 46). Petitioner now moves for relief from final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Doc. 50).
On December 11, 2003, a jury convicted petitioner Brett Stallings of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Doc. 65, Case No. 01-CR-30158-WDS). He was sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment. On appeal, petitioner argued there was insufficient evidence to convict him and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Both arguments were rejected, and petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See United States v. Stallings, 160 Fed. App'x 478 (7th Cir. 2005).
In August 2006, this Court dismissed with prejudice petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 11). Petitioner then moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 13). Among the grounds petitioner asserted were that he had never pled guilty to, or been convicted of, a burglary at the home of John Bailey, 3529 Market Street, East St. Louis, Illinois; and that the Court should recuse itself because Bailey was allegedly an employee or friend of the Court. The Court construed his motion as falling under Rule 60(b), and denied it (Doc. 14).
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit found that petitioner's counsel on direct appeal had failed to request a remand for this Court to consider whether it would have sentenced petitioner differently had it known the sentencing guidelines were advisory, not mandatory. See Stallings v. United States, 536 F.3d 624, 628 (7th Cir. 2008). The Seventh Circuit therefore vacated the Court's order dismissing petitioner's § 2255 motion (Doc. 11) and remanded. Id. The Court then, on the limited Paladino remand, considered whether it would have given petitioner the same sentence had it known the sentencing guidelines were advisory (Doc. 46). See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483--84 (7th Cir. 2005). After examining the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court concluded that it would have given petitioner the same sentence. Therefore, the Court held that petitioner was not prejudiced by his appellate counsel's failure to raise the Paladino argument on appeal, and the Court again dismissed petitioner's § 2255 motion with prejudice (Doc. 46).
Petitioner now seeks relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) (Doc. 50). He raises two grounds for relief: (1) The Court erred in using a burglary at the home of Mr. John Bailey, 3529 Market, East St. Louis, Illinois, as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); and (2) upon completion of his sentence, petitioner's rights were restored, but he was not informed that he could no longer possess firearms.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...