[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13556

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

PATRICK DEWAYNE HALL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket Nos. 2:19-cv-08032-LSC,

2:15-cr-00283-LSC-HNJ-1

USCA11 Case: 22-13556 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13556

____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Dewayne Hall, pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. A member of this Court granted Hall a certificate of appealability (COA) 

on whether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 

(11th Cir. 1992) (en banc) by failing to address Hall’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. The grant had six subclaims:

(1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare his 

case, file motions, request discovery or investigate a 

defense prior to the change-of-plea hearing;

(2) trial counsel was ineffective for misadvising him that 

it did not matter if he was charged related to heroin 

even if he was not involved in dealing heroin;

(3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with 

him about forfeiture and for allowing the government to seek forfeiture;

(4) trial counsel was ineffective for misadvising him that 

he had to plead guilty to all charges;

(5) trial counsel's conduct was sufficient for presumed 

prejudice under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 

(1984); and

(6) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion 

pursuant to Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 

(1972), and for failing to challenge the government’s 

USCA11 Case: 22-13556 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 2 of 5
22-13556 Opinion of the Court 3

response to the Presentence Investigation Report 

when the government used immune information 

from his proffer session in support of the drug attribution amount.

In Clisby, we directed district courts to resolve all claims for 

relief raised in a habeas petition, whether habeas relief is granted 

or denied. 960 F.2d at 935-36. Under Clisby, our only role is to 

determine whether the district court failed to address a claim, not 

whether the underlying claim is meritorious. Dupree v. Warden, 715 

F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2013).

A district court “facilitate[s] meaningful appellate review by 

developing adequate factual records and making sufficiently clear 

findings as to the key issues.” Long v. United States, 626 F.3d 1167, 

1170 (11th Cir. 2010). Indeed, even “reformulat[ing]” or “reframing” a movant’s claim is permissible, so long as the district court 

“get[s] to the root of the problem.” Senter v. United States, 983 F.3d 

1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2020).

Although Hall’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleged trial counsel failed to file motions, request discovery, and investigate a defense prior to Hall’s change-of-plea hearing, the district court failed 

to address this claim. See Dupree, 715 F.3d at 1299-1300 (reviewing

de novo whether a district court violated Clisby by failing to address 

a claim and explaining a habeas petitioner must present a claim in 

clear and simple language such that the district court may not misunderstand it). The district court focused its discussion on the 

change-of-plea and sentencing hearings, which were the focus of 

much of Hall’s extremely lengthy § 2255 motion. However, as the 

USCA11 Case: 22-13556 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13556

Government concedes “[h]ere and there, Hall’s 300-plus page motion includes short allegations that counsel failed to investigate, file 

motions, and request discovery.” Further, issue three of Hall’s motion alleged counsel was ineffective for failing to subject the case to 

“meaningful adversarial testing.” See Winthrop-Redin v. United 

States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating this Court liberally construes pro se filings, including pro se applications for relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The closest the district court came to discussing subclaim 1 of the COA was its finding that trial counsel was 

not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search and seizure. The district court noted Hall 

“fail[ed] to establish any facts supporting a reasonable probability 

that the outcome of his conviction or sentence would have been 

different had [trial counsel] objected to the Government’s use of 

the evidence.” This finding, however, does not “get to the root of 

the problem” concerning Hall’s claim that trial counsel failed to 

take the steps necessary to determine whether Hall had a viable 

defense to his charges before trial counsel advised him to plead 

guilty. See Senter, 983 F.3d at 1294. 

Thus, a remand is appropriate as to subclaim 1 of the COA.1 

As we are remanding on subclaim 1, we do not examine subclaims 

2 through 6 of the COA. On remand, the district court should, if 

1 Hall’s brief makes arguments unrelated to Clisby and outside the scope of his 

COA, and we need not address the issues raised by Hall that are beyond the 

scope of his COA. See Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250 (11th Cir. 

1998) (stating the scope of review in a habeas appeal is limited to the issues 

specified in the COA). 

USCA11 Case: 22-13556 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 4 of 5
22-13556 Opinion of the Court 5

necessary, make sufficiently clear findings on these issues. See Barritt v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 1246, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 2020) 

(explaining no Clisby error occurs when a movant fails to adequately present a claim to the district court); Winthrop-Redin, 767 

F.3d at 1215; Long, 626 F.3d at 1170.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13556 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 5 of 5