[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 19, 2006

N o . 05-14969 THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

D . C. Docket Nos. 04-00018-CV-DF-7

an d 00-00004-CR-WDO

T A JR IC K CONAWAY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Georgia

(J u n e 19, 2006)

B efo re BLACK, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

F ed eral prisoner Tajrick Conaway appeals the district court's denial of his

2 8U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The A n titerro rism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub.L. No.

1 0 4 -1 3 2 , 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), governs this appeal because Conaway filed his m o tio n after the AEDPA's enactment. In his motion to vacate, Conaway claims th a t he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and other constitutional v io latio n s. We granted a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") on the following issu e only: Whether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 938 (1 1 th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by failing to address appellant's claims th a t his counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) advise him that it was p o ssib le for him to enter a conditional guilty plea; and (2) object to th e amount of drugs for which he was held responsible.

W h e n reviewing the district court's denial of a § 2255 motion, we review q u estio n s of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Lynn v. United States, 3 6 5 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 891, 125 S.

C t. 167, 160 L. Ed. 2d 154 (2004). The scope of review is limited to the issues sp ecified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) (per curiam).

E x p r es sin g "deep concern over the piecemeal litigation of federal habeas p etitio n s" in Clisby, we exercised our supervisory authority to require that district co u rts resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus u n d er 28U.S.C. § 2254, regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied.

Clisby, 960 F.2d at 935-36. We explained that, when a district court does not ad d re ss all claims presented in a habeas petition, we will "vacate the district court's ju d g m en t without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining c la im s ." Id. at 938.1 Although Conaway's habeas proceeding is one under § 2255 rath er than § 2254, we have noted that the principles developed in § 2254 p ro ceed in g s likewise apply to motions under § 2255. Gay v. United States, 816 F .2 d 614, 616 n.1 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).2 We have also have vacated and rem an d ed a district court's one-sentence denial of a § 2255 motion so that the d istrict court could "provide further explanation of its ruling in order to provide th is court with a sufficient basis for review." Broadwater v. United States, 292 F .3 d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (internal quotes omitted).

After carefully reviewing the record and considering the parties' briefs, we c o n c lu d e that the district court failed to address adequately Conaway's claim that h is counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he could seek to enter a co n d itio n al guilty plea while reserving the right to appeal the district court's su p p ressio n ruling. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The record does establish, h o w e v e r, that the district court did address Conaway's claim that his counsel was in effectiv e for failing to object to the amount of drugs for which he was held resp o n sib le. We therefore vacate and remand solely for the district court to address th e issue of whether Conaway's former counsel was ineffective for failing to ad v ise him that it was possible for Conaway to seek to enter a conditional guilty p lea while reserving the right to appeal the district court's suppression ruling.

V A C A T E D AND REMANDED.

1 "Policy considerations clearly favor the contemporaneous consideration of allegations of constitutional violations grounded in the same factual basis: a one-proceeding treatment of a petitioner's case enables a more thorough review of his claims, thus enhancing the quality of the judicial product." Clisby, 960 F.2d at 936 (internal quotes omitted).

2 In fact, we have previously applied Clisby to § 2255 proceedings, though in a non-binding opinion. See Jernigan v. United States, 11th Cir. 2006 (No. 05-10425, May 2, 2006) (unpublished) (per curiam).