FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 5, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 14342 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 7 1 - C V - 3 - MC R - MD K E N N E T H D . J E W S O N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s G A R Y T H O M A S , 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 forthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 5, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F lo r id ap r is o n e rK e n n e th D . J e w s o n 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 is fe de r a l habe a s pe ti ti on, br oughtpur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. W e gr a nt e d a certi fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty (C O A ) o n th e fo l l o w i n g i ssu e o n l y: W he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d C l i sby v . Jones , 960 F . 2d 925, 938 (11th C i r. 19 92 ) ( en banc), by fa i l i ng t o add re ss appel l ant ’ s c l ai m that the di stri ctcourtj ud ge l ac ked j uri sdi cti on t o i ss ue an order on an e vi de nti ar y he ar i ng he l d be for e a nothe rj udge , a s s e tfor th i n c l a i m 11 o f a p p e lla n t’s 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . N o r m a lly , w e d e e m is s u e s n o t ar g u e d in th e p e titio n e r ’s b r ie f ab a n d o n e d . See Hartsf

i eld v. L em acks , 50 F . 3d 950, 953 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( c ons i de r i ng aba ndonm e nti n c ont e xtof a§ 1983 a c ti on) . F ore xa m pl e , i n I s aac s v . H e ad , the di s tr i c tc our tc e r ti f

i e d 16 gr ounds forappe a l i n the C O A , butI s a a c s onl y ar gue d 8 of these i n h i s bri ef . 30 0 F . 3d 12 32 , 12 38 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). W e hel d the other e ig h t g r o u n d s w e r e ab a n d o n e d . I d. W e gr a nt e d aC O A on the i s s ue of w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by not a d d r e s s in g th e m e r its o f J e w s o n ’s c la im 1 1 , th a t th e s ta te tr ia l c o u r t c o n d u c tin g h is p o s t- c o n v ic tio n e v id e n tiar y h e ar in g d id n o t p o s s e s s s u bje c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n to ru le o n th e h e ar in g o n c e th e in itia l ju d g e r e c u s e d h im s e lf . J e w s o n ’s b r ie f o n ly a ddr e s s e d the m e r i t s of

the c l a i m , notw he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by not a ddr e s s i ng i t . J e w s on aba ndone d the s ol e i s s ue on w hi c h w e gr a nt e d the C O A by fa ilin g to ar g u e th e is s u e o n a p p e a l.3

E v e n if J e w s o n h a d n o t ab a n d o n e d th e c la im , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t fa il to addres s J ew son’ s c l ai m . A l l cl ai m s r egar di ng defe ct s, j uri sdi cti on alor otherw i se , i n J e w s on’ s s t a t e c ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ng w e r e r e s ol ve d by the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng th atsu ch cl ai m s w ere n o tp ro p erl y b ro u g h ti n a § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n b ecau se th o se c l a i m s di d nota tt a c k J e w s on’ s c onf i ne m e nt , butonl y a tt a c ke d apr oc e e di ng c o lla te r a l to th a t c o n f

in e m e n t. Je w son aband on ed the C l i sby i ss ue on appeal . F urtherm ore, the di stri ct c our tr e s ol ve d e a c h i s s ue r e l a t e d t o J e w s on’ s s t a t e c ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ng i n de c i di ng hi s § 2254 pe ti ti on. AF F I R ME D.