FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT MAY 18 , 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- 14019 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o s . 0 5 - 0 0 7 3 3 - CV - T- 2 6 - TBM

and 0 3-00 30 2-C R -T -2 R Y A N F E R R O , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 18, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R y a n F e r r o , p r o c e e d in g p r o s e , a p p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to v a c a te h is2

s e nt e nc e br oughtpur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255. A f t e rr e vi e w , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a n d th is c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D F e r r o f i l e d a § 2255 m ot i on i n w hi c h he r a i s e d the f ol l ow i ng f

i ve c l a i m s : ( 1) tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f

f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o f

i l e a n a ppe a l of

F e r r o’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e a f

t e rhe i ns truc t e d c ouns e l t o do s o; ( 2) tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f or f a i l i ng t o m a ke a c ons t i tut i ona l obj e c t i on t o the drug qua nt i ty a t tr i but e d t o hi m f or p u rp o s e s o f

s e n te n c in g ; ( 3 ) tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o ra d v is in g h im to w i th d raw h i s o b

j ect i o n t o th e d ru g q u an t i ty fi n d i n g an d t o st i p u l at e th atth e o ffen se i nvol ve d 1. 5 ki l ogr a m s of c r a c k c oc a i ne ; ( 4) the gove r nm e ntvi ol a t e d the t e r m s of the pl ea agre em entby threa t eni ng t o w i thd ra w i t s r ec om m endat i on of an ac ce pt ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty r educt i on un der U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1 o r t o n otfi l e a U . S . S . G . § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on f ora dow nw a r d de pa r tur e i f F e r r o c ont e s t e d drug q u a n tity a ttr ib u te d to h im a t s e n te n c in g ; a n d ( 5 ) tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in n e g o tia tin g a n a p p e a l w a iv e ra s p a r t o f h is p le a a g r e e m e n t b e c a u s e it n o w p r e v e n ts hi m f r om a ppe a l i ng the drug qua nt i ty a t tr i but e d t o hi m a ts e nt e nc i ng. I n d e n y i n g Fe r r o ’ s mo t i o n , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i s t i l l e d a l l o f Fe r r o ’ s c l a i ms do w n t o a si ng l e i ss ue: w hether tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o m ake a pr ope robj e c t i on t o the drug qua nt i ty a t tr i but e d t o F e r r o a ts e nt e nc i ng s o tha ttheIn revie winga district cour t’s denial of a

§ 2255 motion, we revie w finding s of fa ct for 1 clea r er ror a nd questions of law denovo. Ly nn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 ( 11 Cir.), th cer t. denied, 543 U.S. 891 (2004). Although Clisby

involved a petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the primary 2 c on c e rn motivatin gthi s Co ur

t’ s d e c isi on

to re qu ir edis tric t c ourt s to a dd re ss all i ssu e s in

thefi rs t instance w as the piec emeal liti g ation that nece ssarily ensues when only

some claims are 3 i ss ue coul d b e pre se rved for appel l at e r evi ew . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that F e r r o’ s s w or n s t a t e m e nt s a thi s s e nt e nc i ng tha the di d notw a ntt o tur n the drug qua nt i ty i s s ue i nt o a n “ a dve r s a r i a l s i tua t i on” be l i e d hi s c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e a nd de ni e d F e r r o’ s § 2255 m ot i on. F e r r o f i l e d a not i c e of

a ppe a l . 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 on the f ol l ow i ng i s s ue onl y : “ [ w ] he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d C l i s by v. J one s , 960 F. 2 d 9 2 5 , 9 3 6 ( 1 1 Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n b a n c ) , b y f a i l i n g t o a d d r e s s a l l o f

th e c l a i ms th r a i s e d i n a p p e l l a n t ’ s 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n ?” I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p eal , F erro arg u es, an d w e ag ree, th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tad d ress al l of the cl ai m s r ai se d i n h i s § 22 55 m ot i on . In C l i sby, w e i nstruct ed the di stri ct 1 c our t s t o 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 pr i ort o gr a nt i ng orde ny i ng r e l i e f . 960 F . 2d a t936. W e c onc l ude d tha tw he n a di s tr i c tc our tf

a i l s t o a ddr e s s a l l c l a i m s i n the ha be a s pe t i t i on, “ w e w i l l va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ 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 c l a i m s . ” I d. a t935. 2a dd

re sse d in thefirs t in sta

nc e . Cl isb y , 9 60 F .2 d at 93 5. (“ We . . . se izethi s o pp or tun ity to e xpre ss o ur

de ep c on c e rn

ov e r t hepie c e me a l li tig atio n o f f e de ral ha be a s p e tition s f

ile d b y state prisoners . . . .” ). L ikewise, a district court is require d to addre ss all issues raised in a § 2255 motion in the first instance . See Ga y v. United States, 816 F.2d 614, 616 n.1 ( 11 Cir. 1987) th (“[T]he principles deve loped in habea s case s also apply to § 2255 motions .”). We re je c t F e rro’ s argument t

hat th edis tric t c ourt

faile d to a dd

re ss F e rro’ s c laim that hi s 3 trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive in neg otiating a n appeal waiver

as par t of Ferro’ s plea agree ment. Th e dis tric t c ourt

a dd re sse d th is c la im whe n it

re je c te d o n th eme ri ts F e rro’ s c onte nti on tha t hi s trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive in failing to pre servefor a ppellate review theconstitutional o b j ec t i o nt o th e dru g qu ant i ty attri b ut edt o h i mats ent en ci n g.

4 Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d , a n d u p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o a ddr e s s tw o of

F e r r o’ s c l a i m s , na m e l y : ( 1) w h e th e rtr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to f

ile a n a p p e a l a s a lle g e d ly in stru cted b y F er ro ; an d (2 ) w h eth er th e g o v er n m en t v io lated th e ter m s o f F er ro ’s pl e a a gr e e m e ntby thr e a t e ni ng t o w i thdr a w f a vor a bl e s e nt e nc i ng r e c om m e nda t i ons i f F erro cont es t ed the drug qu ant i ty a t tri bu t ed t o h i m atse nt enci ng . T he re cord 3 s h o w s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a d d r e s s F e r r o ’s a lle g a tio n s th a t h e a s k e d h is atto rn ey to file an ap p ea l. S im il ar ly, th e d istrict co u rt fa il ed to ad d re ss F er ro ’s a l l e ga t i on tha tthe gove r nm e nte nga ge d i n thr e a t e ni ng a nd i m pr ope rc onduc tpr i or t o sent enci ng , i n v i ol at i on of the pl ea agre em ent , and t hat , as a r es ul t , F erro st i pu l at ed t o an i ncre as ed drug qu ant i ty a tse nt enci ng . B ec ause the di stri ctcourt di d nota ddr e s s the m e r i t s of the s e tw o c l a i m s , w e va c a t e the j udgm e nta nd r e m a nd th e r e m a in in g c la im s f

o rc o n s id e r a tio n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.