[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 22

- 10007
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ JASON PHILPOT,
Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

- Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:15

- cr

- 00028

- TWT

- LTW

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10007 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/06/2023 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 22

- 10007

Before W ILLIAM P RYOR , Chief Judge, and N EWSOM and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Jason Philpot, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his motion to vacate his convictions for Hobbs A ct robbery, 18 U.S.C. § § 1951(a) and 2 , discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, id. § 922(g)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We granted a certificate of appealability to address whether the district court erred by entering judgment against Philpot after ruling on only one of his nine claims for relief

. Clisby v. Jones , 960 F.2d 925, 936

– 37 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc). Because we conclude that the district court erred by not considering all his constitutional claims
, see id.
, we vacate and remand for further proce edings

. A district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, regardless of whether it grants or denies relief. Rhode v. United States , 583 F.3d 1289, 1291

– 92 (11th Cir. 2009); Clisby , 960 F.2d at 936 (addressing a section 2254 petition). “A claim for relief for purposes of this instruction is any allegation of a constitutional violation.” Clisby , 960 F.2d at 936. When a district court fails to resolve every claim, “we will vacate the judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all of the remaining claims” without addressing whether the underlying claims are meritorious. Dupree v. Warden , 715 F.3d 1295,
1298

– 99 (11th Cir. 2013) (addressing a section 2254 petition ). USCA11 Case: 22-10007 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/06/2023 Page: 2 of 322

- 10007 Opinion of the Court 3

In his pro se initial brief, Philpot mention s that the district

court failed to address eight of his claims for relief
, though he does not argue that it was error for the district court not to do so. See United States v. Campbell , 26 F.4th 860, 871 (11t h Cir. 2022) (en banc) (“Typically, issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned.”). The government concedes that the district

court erred by not addressing Philpot’s other claims, all of which he prominently raised in his motion a nd the government addressed in its response

. B ecause the proper resolution of this issue is beyond any doubt, we may consider sua sponte the otherwise forfeited issue of Clisby error

. See id. at 873

– 74 , 877

. The district court erred by not resolving all the claims in Philpot’s motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His claims included ineffective assistance of counsel, violation of the Confrontation Clause, and error under Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). The district court ente red judgment against Philpot “with respect to the Rehaif claim” and did not address any of his other prominently

- raised constitutional grounds for relief. See Clisby , 960 F.2d at 936. W e VACATE the order denying Philpot’s motion to vacate and REMAND for fu rther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED

. USCA11 Case: 22-10007 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/06/2023 Page: 3 of 3