Case Name: Mario BACHILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-30
Citations: 441 F. App'x 748
Docket Number: No. 11-11310
Parties: Mario BACHILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 748–748

Head Matter:
Mario BACHILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-11310
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 30, 2011.
Mario Bachiller, Jonesville, VA, pro se.
Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Anthony W. Lacosta, Jeanne M. Mullenhoff, Laura Thomas Rivero, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mario Bachiller, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In Ground 6 of his motion, Bachiller alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a jury instruction to determine the quantity of drugs individually attributable to him and the other defendants at his trial on drug, robbery, and firearm charges. We granted a certificate of appealability on the following issue:
Whether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir.1992), by failing to address Bachil-ler's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction requiring the jury to make a threshold determination of the drug quantity attributable to each defendant.
In ground 6 of his motion to vacate, Bachiller fairly presented a claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction for the jury to make a threshold determination of the drug amount attributable to each defendant at his trial. The government concedes that the district court did not address this claim. We disagree with the contention of the government that Bachiller waived his argument by failing to raise it in his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying Bachiller's motion and remand with instructions to address the claim that he raised in ground 6.
VACATED AND REMANDED.