FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 38 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 3: 10 -cv -0 00 57 -VMC- TEM, 3: 05 -cr- 00 33 9- VMC-TEM -1
PATRICK FI TZGERALD PORTER, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 2, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Patric k F it zg eral d P orte r, a p ro se f ed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he di stric tco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on s an d

se nt en ces . After r ev ie w, we vac at e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n
co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . I. BACKG ROUND In20 05 , Porte r was in di ct edon 17 dru g- an d fi rearm -rel at edoff en se s. A jury fou ndhi m

gu il ty of al l 1 7 o ffen se s, an d t he di stric t co urt s en te nc edhi m to 18 2 years’ im

pr is on m en t. Thi s C ou rt a ffi rm edPo rte r’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e
on di rectap pe al . See Un it edSta te s v . Porte r, 29 3 F . App ’x 70 0, 7 04 -0 8 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ). In20 10 , Porte r fi le d thi s p ro se m ot io n t o v acat e u nd er § 22 55 , ass ert in g t en cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, n in e b y hi s p retria l/ st an d- by tria l
co un se l an d o ne by his ap pe ll at e co un se l. In a ddres si ng Po rte r’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n, 1 th e d is tri ctco urt d is cu ss edth e cl ai m s ag ai ns t h is pre tri al /s ta nd -b y tri al co un se l
an d fo un d t he y

lac ke d m eri t, b utitdi d n otdi sc us s the cla im ag ai ns t h is ap pe ll at e
co un se l. Thi s C ou rt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al (“ COA”) o n t he is su e o f: Whe th er th e di st ric t co urt vi ol at ed Cl is by v. Jo ne s, 9 6 0 F.2 d 92 5, 93 6 (1 1t h Cir. 19 92 ) (enba nc ), whe n i t fail ed to ad dr es s Port er’s argu m en t

Porter argued that by

denying his re quest for a trial continuanc e to obtain a ba llist ics 1 expert, the trial cour

t effe ctively

violated his Six th Amendment right to compel witnesses in his favor , and that his appe llate counse l’s failure to raise this issue on appe al constituted ineff ective assistance
. 2th at hi s ap pe ll at e co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to arg ue th at th e

tri al co urt vi ol at ed h i s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co m pe l witne ss es in hi s fa vo r? II . DISCUSSI ON InCli sb y , th is Co urt i ns tru ct eddi st ric t co urts to res ol ve all cla im s fo r rel ie f rai se d i n ape ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us pri orto gra nt in g o r de nyin g re li ef. Cl is by v. Jo ne s, 9 60 F.2d92 5, 9 36 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (en ba nc )(i nv ol vi ng st at e pr is on er’s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on ); s ee Rh od e v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 83 F.3d12 89 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ap pl y in g C li sb y to a fed eral pri so ne r’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n) . If th e d is tri ctco urt d oe s n otad dr es s al l cl ai m s p rio r to is su in g ju dg m en t, thi s C ou rt

“ wil l v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce an d re m an d the cas e fo r co ns id erat io n o f al l re m ai ni ng cla im s.” C li sb y , 96 0 F .2dat 9 38
. 2 Po rte r arg ue s, an d t he go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ad dr es s Po rte r’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f ap pe ll at e co un se l cl ai m . W e ag ree t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt ad dr es se d P orte r’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t h is pre tri al /s ta nd -b y tri al
co un se l b utne ve r ad dr es se d the cla im s ag ai ns t h is ap pe ll at e co un se l. Thi s fa il ur e to co ns id er al l o f th e cl ai m s s etforth inhi s § 22 55 m ot io n v io la te s C li sb y . W e rejectPo rte r’s in vi ta ti on to co ns id er the m eri ts of h is in effe ct iv e

In revie wingthe district court’s de nial of a § 2255 motion, we r eview f indings of f

act f or 2 clea r er ror, a nd questions of law de novo. Ly nn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 ( 11th Cir. 2004). 3as si st an ce o f ap pe ll at e co un se l cl ai m . Und er Cl is by, ourrol e is to va cat e th e

jud gm en t “ witho utpre

jud ic e” an d re m an d t o t he di stric t co urt fo r co ns id erat io n o f th e una dd res se d c la im

inth e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. Id . Port er o ffer s n o re as on th atth e di st ric t co urt wi ll no t b e ab le to fai rly revi ew hi s ap pe ll at e co un se l cl ai m . Fu rth erm or e, th e m eri ts of P orte r’s ap pe ll at e co un se l cl ai m ex ceedth e sc op e o f
ou r rev ie w, whi chis li mit edto th e Cl is by iss ue sp eci fie d i n the COA. See Mu rray v. Un it edSta te s, 1 45 F.3d12 49 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Co ns is te ntwith t he se
reas on s, we v acat e th e jud gm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce an d re m an d t he cas e to th e di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r Po rte r’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f ap pe ll at e co un se l cl ai m . VACATED AND REMANDED.

4