Jason Philpot v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 6, 2023
• Docket: 22-10007
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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