Opinion ID: 802650
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We have jurisdiction to review any final order denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but only if a COA has been granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Here, a COA was issued, but it does not identify the issues for which appeal is authorized as required by § 2253(c)(3). However, the Supreme Court has recently clarified that the specificity requirement in § 2253(c)(3) is mandatory, but not jurisdictional. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 656 (2012). Therefore, the fact that the COA failed to comply with § 2253(c)(3) does not divest us of jurisdiction to hear Howard’s appeal. The next question that we must resolve is what issues were covered by the general COA. The parties do not argue, and we do not ourselves hold, that our review is limited to the issues identified in Howard’s request for a COA. Howard’s pro se request for a COA sought review only of the district court’s discussion of his prior offenses in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the PSR, but made no mention of reviewing the district court’s decision with respect to paragraph 38, which is the primary offense argued on appeal. R. 74 (Request for COA). Howard’s brief on appeal filed by appointed counsel addresses paragraphs 38 and 42, both of which were addressed by the district court, and the government has responded fully to these claims. We have previously recognized our inherent authority to expand sua sponte the scope of the COA to encompass additional issues briefed and addressed on the merits before the district court, and we exercise that authority now to expand the scope of Howard’s COA to encompass the issues briefed on appeal. See Meadows v. Doom, 450 F. App’x 518, 519 n.1 (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished opinion); Humphreys v. United States, 238 F. App’x 134, 138-39 (6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished opinion); Mack v. Holt, 62 F. App’x 577, 578 (6th 4 No. 10-2601 Howard v. United States Cir.) (unpublished opinion), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 862 (2003); see also United States v. Shipp, 589 F.3d 1084, 1087-88 (10th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).