[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10007

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jason Philpot, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of 

his motion to vacate his convictions for Hobbs Act 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 proceedings.

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 3
22-10007 Opinion of the Court 3

In his pro se initial brief, Philpot mentions 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 (11th 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 and the government addressed 

in its response. Because 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 entered 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. We VACATE the order denying Philpot’s motion to 

vacate and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

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