FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 10 -1 26 76 & 1 0- 13 09 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 3: 07 -cr- 00 10 5- MCR -MD-1

3: 09 -cv -0 02 89 -MC R-M D HOLLY M. BARNES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 23 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Hol ly Barne s, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f he r 28

U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, orco rrec t h er s en te nc e. W e g ran te d a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) as to “ [w]hethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itfai le d t o c on si de r Barne s’s ar gu m en t, ra is edinhe r rep ly to the go ve rn m en t’s
res po ns e, al le gi ng th atco un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to arg ue on di rectap pe al th atth e se nt en ci ng co urt i nc orrect ly app li eda vi ct im -rel at edad jus tm en t, U.S.S.G. § 3 A1.1 (b ), in cal cu la ti ng he r se nt en ce. ” Barn es fai le d t o p ro vi de an y arg um en t o n the is su e sp eci fie d i n the COA. 1 Ord in ari ly, anap pe ll an t ab an do ns anis su e if sh e fai ls to rai se itinhe r in it ia l b rie f. Se e Ti mso n v . Sa mps on , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 8 74 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m). B ut i n de fe re nc e to B ar

ne s’ s pro se sta

tus , w e w illc onsi de r the iss ue pr es ente d in the CO A be ca use it is cl ea r that sh e int en de d to pur sue the que sti on t hr ough r ai sin g th e m erits of he r unde rl y ingse nte nc ingc la im s. Se e H ain es v . Ke rne r , 404 U
. S. 519 , 520 (1 972) (pe r cu

ri am ) (e xpl ai nin g ho w pro seple ad ing s a re he ld t o a

le ss s tring ent sta nda rd tha n f or m alple ad ing s dr af

te d by la wy er s)
.

Instead, B arne s argues that the district cour t erre d in applying a

vulnera ble-victim 1 enhanc ement under

U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, and that her appellatecounsel wa s ineffe ctive for failing to challeng e the e nhance ment on direc t appea l. We cannot consider these a rguments, howeve r, beca use they areoutside the scope of

the COA. See M

urray v. United States , 145 F.3d 1249, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 1998) (pe r curiam) (“ [I ]n an appea l brought by an unsucc essful habe as petitioner, appe llate re view is limit ed to the issues spec ific in the COA.”)
. 2Whe n re vi ewin g adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 55 m ot io n, we re vi ew

factua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d l eg al co nc lu si on s de no vo . Rho de v. Uni te d St at es , 58 3 F .3d12 89 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m). W he n adi st ric t co urt do es no t ad dr es s al l “ cl ai m s fo r rel ie f” rai se d i n a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, we “ va cat e th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce an d re m an d the cas e fo r co ns id erat io n of all rem ai ni ng cla im s . . . .” Clisb y v. Jo ne s , 96 0 F .2d92 5, 9 36 , 93 8 (1 1t h C ir. 19 92 ) (en ba nc ). A clai m for rel ie f is “ an y

all eg at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Id

. at93 6. Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t v io la te Cl is bybe cau se Barn es di d n ot pr op erl y rai se th e in effe ct iv e-ap pe ll at e-co un se l cl ai m to th e d is tri ctco urt. Fi rs t, th e cl ai m was i ni ti al ly m en ti on edinhe r rep ly to the go ve rn m en t’s re sp on se to he r § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Ra th er tha n a rg ue a ne w in effe ct iv e-ap pe ll at e-co un se l cl ai m , Barn es arg ue d t ha t h er und erl y in g § 22 55 cla im s wer e n otpro cedur al ly barre d be cau se he r ap pe ll at e co un se l d idno t co ns ul t with h er re ga rd in g t he is su es he was rai si ng on di rectap pe al . Barn es ne ve r arg ue d t ha t n o o th er re as on ab le ap pe ll at e
co un se l wo ul d h av e act edth e sa m e way , or t ha t h er ap pe ll at e co un se l’s fa il ur e pr ejud ic edth e o ut co m e o f he r ap pe al
. Se e Str ic klan d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 (19 84 ) (s et ti ng ou t the tes t fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l). Mo reo ve r, to th e ex te ntBarn es in te nd edth e arg um en t t o b e a n ew 3subs ta nt iv e cl ai m for rel ie f, itwas u nt im el y

un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 5( a). Se e Med er os v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 54 (11 th Cir
. 20 00 ) (ap pl y in g R

ul e 1 5( a) i n the co nt ex t o f § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in gs ). On the da te Barn es fil edhe r rep ly, th e ti m e fo r am en di ng he r § 2 25 5 m ot io n a s a m at te r of rig htha d e xp ire d b ecau se sh e fi le d h er rep ly m or e th an21 da y s af te r th e go ve rn m en t fi le d i ts res po ns iv e p le ad in g. Co mpa re Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (a)( 1) (2 00 7) (requi rin g t he am en dm en t t o b e fi le d p rio r to th e fi li ng of the res po ns iv e pl ead in g) , wi th Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (a)( 1) (20 09 ) (requi rin g t he am en dm en t t o b e fil edwithi n 2 1 d ay s af

te r se rv ic e o f th e res po ns iv e p le ad in g)
. 2 The refo re, we aff

irm. AFFIRMED.

The ne wer

version of Rule 15( a)( 1) wa s in effe ct when B arne s filed her reply on 2 Dec ember

22, 2009, beca

use ame ndments to the Fe dera l Rules apply to then-pendinglitigation on the ef fec tive date. F ed. R. Civ. P. 86. 4