[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 8, 2008
No. 07-15220
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos.
07-00601-CV-CC-1 & 04-00443-CR-CC
DARYL B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(July 8, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daryl B. Williams appeals pro se the denial of his motion to vacate his
sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Williams was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute more than
50 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
120 months. In his petition under section 2255, Williams raised eighteen issues
regarding his conviction and sentence. The district court denied the petition based
on “the three grounds . . . brought,” although it listed four issues considered. The
district court denied Williams a certificate of appeal, but we granted Williams a
certificate of appeal on two issues: (1) whether Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925,
935-36 (11th Cir. 1992) required the district court to address all the claims raised
in the motion under section 2255; and (2) if so, whether the district court erred
when it failed to provide a specific basis for appellate review under Broadwater v.
United States, 292 F.3d 1302, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2002), or when it failed to
address all the of the claims raised in the motion under 2255.
The law that governs this appeal is well-settled. “In a [s]ection 2255
proceeding, we review legal issues de novo and factual findings under a clear error
standard.” Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting
United States v. Walker, 198 F.3d 811, 813 (11th Cir. 1999). The scope of review
is limited to the issues specified in the certificate of appeal. Murray v. United
States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250 (11th Cir. 1998). In Clisby, we exercised our
2
supervisory authority to direct district courts to resolve all constitutional claims
presented in a section 2254 petition without regard to whether habeas relief
ultimately is granted or denied. Id. When a district court fails to address all claims
presented in a habeas petition, we “will vacate the district court’s judgment
without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims.”
Id. at 938. Although this appeal is based on a motion under section 2255, instead
of a habeas petition under section 2254, the principles applied in proceedings
under section 2254 ordinarily apply to motions under section 2255. Gay v. United
States, 816 F.2d 614, 616 n.1 (11th Cir. 1987). A district court also errs when it
rules on a motion under section 2255 in way that does not provide a sufficient
basis for appellate review. Broadwater v. United States, 292 F.3d 1302, 1303
(11th Cir. 2002). The district court must provide enough explanation in its denial
of a motion under section 2255 “to provide this Court with a sufficient basis for
review.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Williams argues, and the government concedes, that the district court did
not address all of the claims raised by Williams in his motion under 2255.
Although the district court addressed claims about the sufficiency of the evidence,
admission of evidence, compliance with the requirements to establish previous
convictions, 21 U.S.C. § 851(b), and the ineffectiveness of counsel related to those
3
issues, the district court failed to address Williams’s remaining claims. The
district court must consider all of Williams’s claims in the first instance. Because
of this error, we need not decide whether the explanation provided by the district
court was sufficient for appellate review under Broadwater.
We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further
proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4