Court Opinion

ID: 9840604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 17:01:43.812976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:07.480605
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14152    Document: 47-1     Date Filed: 09/19/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-14152
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DARRYL BURKE,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket Nos. 1:17-cv-22629-JIC,
                              1:13-cr-20616-JIC-1
USCA11 Case: 21-14152         Document: 47-1        Date Filed: 09/19/2023         Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       21-14152

                               ____________________

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Darryl Burke, a federal prisoner pro se,1 appeals the district
       court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.
       He argues that the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d
       925 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by not fully addressing his claim that
       his sentencing counsel’s failure to investigate and subpoena rele-
       vant records was unconstitutionally ineffective. After careful re-
       view, we affirm.2
               We review de novo whether a district court violated Clisby
       by failing to address a claim. Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1299–
       1300 (11th Cir. 2013). In Clisby, we directed district courts to re-
       solve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition, regardless of
       whether habeas relief is granted or denied. 960 F.2d at 935–36. Un-
       der Clisby, this court’s only role is to determine whether the district
       court failed to address a claim, not whether the underlying claim is

       1 We liberally construe pro se filings, including pro se applications for relief

       under § 2255. Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir.
       2014).
       2 Burke’s brief addresses several issues that we did not grant a certificate of

       appealability (COA) for. Thus, we need not address those issues as they are
       beyond the scope of the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251
       (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[I]n an appeal brought by an unsuccessful ha-
       beas petitioner, appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the
       COA.”).
USCA11 Case: 21-14152          Document: 47-1          Date Filed: 09/19/2023           Page: 3 of 3

       21-14152                    Opinion of the Court                                   3

       meritorious. Dupree, 715 F.3d at 1299. A habeas petitioner must
       present a claim in clear and simple language such that the district
       court may not misunderstand it. Id.
               In his § 2255 motion, Burke argued that if not for his coun-
       sel’s ineffectiveness, he could have shown that a co-conspirator had
       acquired a mortgage before she met Burke. In its order § 2255 mo-
       tion, the district court explicitly addressed this claim and concluded
       that Burke had failed to show prejudice. See Clisby, 960 F.2d at 935–
       36. Thus, there was no Clisby error.3
               AFFIRMED.

       3 Burke argues that the district court erred in not finding prejudice because his

       counsel failed to obtain documents about his co-conspirator paying off her
       mortgage. But he does not argue that the district court erred in not consider-
       ing that specific claim. Even if he did make that argument, Burke did not ad-
       equately present that claim in his § 2255 motion such that the district court
       could not misunderstand it. See Barritt v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 1246,
       1251 (11th Cir. 2020).