Court Opinion

ID: 9407328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 16:01:18.490122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.957717
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10007    Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 07/06/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10007
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JASON PHILPOT,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00028-TWT-LTW-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10007       Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10007

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jason Philpot, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of
       his motion to vacate his convictions for Hobbs Act robbery, 18
       U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2, discharging a firearm during a crime of vi-
       olence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and being a felon in possession of a
       firearm, id. § 922(g)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We granted a certificate
       of appealability to address whether the district court erred by en-
       tering judgment against Philpot after ruling on only one of his nine
       claims for relief. Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936–37 (11th Cir. 1992)
       (en banc). Because we conclude that the district court erred by not
       considering all his constitutional claims, see id., we vacate and re-
       mand for further proceedings.
               A district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a
       motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, regardless of whether it grants
       or denies relief. Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291–92 (11th
       Cir. 2009); Clisby, 960 F.2d at 936 (addressing a section 2254 peti-
       tion). “A claim for relief for purposes of this instruction is any alle-
       gation of a constitutional violation.” Clisby, 960 F.2d at 936. When
       a district court fails to resolve every claim, “we will vacate the judg-
       ment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of
       all of the remaining claims” without addressing whether the under-
       lying claims are meritorious. Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295,
       1298–99 (11th Cir. 2013) (addressing a section 2254 petition).
USCA11 Case: 22-10007      Document: 33-1       Date Filed: 07/06/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-10007                Opinion of the Court                          3

                In his pro se initial brief, Philpot mentions that the district
       court failed to address eight of his claims for relief, though he does
       not argue that it was error for the district court not to do so. See
       United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc)
       (“Typically, issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are
       deemed abandoned.”). The government concedes that the district
       court erred by not addressing Philpot’s other claims, all of which
       he prominently raised in his motion and the government addressed
       in its response. Because the proper resolution of this issue is beyond
       any doubt, we may consider sua sponte the otherwise forfeited issue
       of Clisby error. See id. at 873–74, 877.
              The district court erred by not resolving all the claims in
       Philpot’s motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His claims included
       ineffective assistance of counsel, violation of the Confrontation
       Clause, and error under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191
       (2019). The district court entered judgment against Philpot “with
       respect to the Rehaif claim” and did not address any of his other
       prominently-raised constitutional grounds for relief. See Clisby, 960
       F.2d at 936. We VACATE the order denying Philpot’s motion to
       vacate and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this
       opinion.
              VACATED and REMANDED.