Jason Philpot v. USA

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 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: 2 of 3

-- 2 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.
USCA11 Case: 22-10007 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/06/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --