Appellant Darrick Adaway, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We granted a certificate of appealability as to whether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 938 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), when it failed to address his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to appeal a motion to suppress his confession.

“[W]e review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and findings of fact for clear error.” Stewart v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 476 F.3d 1193, 1208 (11th Cir. 2007). In Clisby, we held that when a district court fails to address all claims in a habeas petition, we will vacate without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims. 960 F.2d at 938. Under Clisby, a claim “is any allegation of a constitutional violation.” Id. at 936. Ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, and thus is a claim of a constitutional violation. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

After a careful review of the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we conclude the district court violated Clisby by failing to address Adawa/s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure *384 to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress his confession. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment without prejudice and remand for consideration of the remaining claim by the district court.

VACATED AND REMANDED.