FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 19 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14969 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN os. 04 -000 18 -C V -D F -7 a n d 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 4 - C R - WDO T A J R I C K C O N A W A Y , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 19, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F e d e r a l p r is o n e rT a

jr ic k C o n a w a y ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is2

28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de , orc orr e c thi s s e nt e nc e . T he A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f

f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 ( “ A E D P A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 1 0 4 - 1 3 2 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 1 2 1 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , g o v e rn s th is ap p e a l b e c a u s e C o n a w a y f ile d h is mo t i o n a f

t e rth e A ED PA ’ s e n a c tme n t . I n h i s mo t i o n t o v a c a t e , Co n a w a y c l a i ms thathe w as deni ed the ef fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l and o ther c on st i tut i on al vi ol a t i ons . W e gr a nt e d a C e r t i f i c a t e of A ppe a l a bi l i ty ( “ C O A ” ) on the f ol l ow i ng is s u e o n ly : W he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d C l isby v . Jones , 960 F . 2 d 925, 938 ( 11 th Ci r . 19 92 ) ( en banc ) , b y f a i l i n g t o a d d r e s s ap p e l l a n t ’ s c l a i ms thathi s c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o (1) ad v ise h i m thati tw as p o s s ib le f

o rh im to e n te ra c o n d itio n a l g u i lty p le a ; a n d ( 2 ) o b je c t to the am ou ntof drug s f

or w hi ch he w as hel d res po nsi bl e. W hen revi ew i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a § 22 55 m ot i on , w e r evi ew q u e s tio n s o f

la w d e n o v o a n d f

in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o r . L

ynn v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 6 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , ce rt. deni ed , 5 4 3 U . S. 8 9 1 , 1 2 5 S. C t . 16 7, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 15 4 (20 04 ). T he sc op e of r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the i ss ues s p e c if ie d in th e C O A . Murray v . U ni t ed Stat es , 14 5 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 50 -51 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( per c uri am ). E xp re ss i ng “ deep concern over the pi ec em ea l l i t i gat i on of fe dera l habeas pe t i t i ons ” i n C l is by , w e e xerc i se d o ur supervi sory autho ri ty t o requi re thatdi stri ct c our t s r e s ol ve a l l c l a i m s f orr e l i e f r a i s e d i n a pe t i t i on f

orw r i tof

ha be a s c orpus“Policy considera

tions clearly favor the contemporaneous consideration of alleg ations of 1 constitutional v i o l at i o n s grounded in the same factual basis: a one -proc eeding treatment of a petitioner’s c ase enables a more thorough review of his claims, thus enhanc ing the qu al i ty of the judicial product.” Clisby , 960 F.2d at 936 (internal quotes omitted). In fac t, we havepreviously applied Clisby to § 2255 proce eding s, though in a non-binding 2 opinion. See J

ernigan v. United States , 11th Cir. 2006 (No. 05-10425, May 2, 2006) (unpublished) (per curiam). 3 u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , r e g a r d le s s o f w h e th e rh a b e a s r e lie f

is g r a n te d o rd e n ie d . C l is by , 960 F . 2d a t935- 36. W e e xpl a i ne d tha t , w he n a di s tr i c tc our tdoe s not ad d re ss all claim s p re se n ted in a h ab ea s p etit io n , w e w il l “ v ac ate th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntw i thoutpr e

j udi c e a nd r e m a nd the c a s e f orc ons i de r a t i on of

a l l r e m a i ni ng cl ai m s. ” I

d. a t938. A l though C ona w a y ’ s ha be a s pr oc e e di ng i s one unde r§ 2255

1 r a the rtha n § 2254, w e ha ve not e d tha tthe pr i nc i pl e s de ve l ope d i n § 2254 p r o c e e d in g s lik e w is e ap p ly to m o tio n s u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 . G ay v. U ni t ed Stat es , 816 F . 2d 614, 616 n. 1 ( 11th C i r . 1987) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W e ha ve a l s o ha ve va c a t e d a nd 2 r e m a nde d a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s one - s e nt e nc e de ni a l of a § 2255 m ot i on s o tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc oul d “ pr ovi de f ur the re xpl a na t i on of

i t s rul i ng i n or de rt o pr ovi de thi s c ou rtw i th a suff

i ci entbasi s f

or re vi ew . ” B roadw at erv. U ni t ed Stat es , 292 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( in te rn a l q u o te s o m itte d ) . Af t e rc a r e f u l l y r e v i e wi n g th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r i n g th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s , we concl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o add re ss adequat el y C on aw ay ’ s c l ai m that hi s c ou nsel w as i neff

ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o adv i se hi m thathe coul d see k t o ent era4

co n d it io n al g u il ty p lea w h il e r es er v in g th e r ig h t t o ap p ea l th e d istrict co u rt’s s u p p r e s s io n ru lin g . See F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11( a ) ( 2) . T he r e c or d doe s e s t a bl i s h, ho w ever , thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d add re ss C on aw ay ’ s c l ai m thathi s c ou nsel w as in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to o b

je c t to th e a m o u n t o f

d ru g s f o rw h ic h h e w a s h e ld resp o n si b l e. W e th erefo re v acat e an d rem an d so l el y fo r th e d i stri ctco u rtt o ad d ress th e is s u e o f

w h e th e rC o n a w a y ’s f

o r m e rc o u n s e l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to a d v is e h im th a t it w a s p o s s ib le f o rC o n a w a y to s e e k to e n te ra c o n d itio n a l g u ilty pl e a w hi l e r e s e r vi ng the r i ghtt o appe a l the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s uppr e s s i on rul i ng. VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED .