USCA11 Case: 23-13827 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/04/2025 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13827 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

TIMOTHY JARRED PAIGE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket Nos. 9:22-cv-80895-RLR, 9:18-cr-80228-RLR-1 ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Timothy Paige, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. USCA11 Case: 23-13827 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/04/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13827

When the district court denied the motion, it failed to address Paige’s claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his appellate counsel failed to raise challenges to (1) his con- viction on the basis that the government failed to prove that he knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm, see Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), or (2) his sentence on the basis that he was not eligible for a career-offender enhancement. District courts must “resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus . . . , regardless [of] whether ha- beas relief is granted or denied.” Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc). For these purposes, a claim for relief is “any allegation of a constitutional violation.” Id. Allegations of two separate constitutional violations “constitute two distinct claims for relief, even if both allegations arise from the same alleged set of operative facts.” Id. If a district court fails to resolve all the claims raised by a prisoner, we must “vacate the district court’s judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all re- maining claims.” Id. at 938. We have extended this reasoning to § 2255 motions. See Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). We review “de novo the legal question of whether the district court violated the rule announced in Clisby” by failing to address a prisoner’s claim. Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1299–1300 (11th Cir. 2013). Here, the district court committed Clisby error. It failed to address Paige’s claims alleging that he was denied effective USCA11 Case: 23-13827 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/04/2025 Page: 3 of 4

23-13827 Opinion of the Court 3

assistance of counsel on appeal when his attorney failed to raise a Rehaif challenge to his conviction or a challenge to the district court’s application of a career-offender enhancement at sentencing. It is true that in denying the § 2255 motion the district court ad- dressed whether Paige’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to raise these issues before the district court. But the dis- trict court appears to have overlooked that Paige separately raised claims alleging ineffective assistance by appellate counsel. Under Clisby, the district court erred in denying the § 2255 motion with- out addressing these claims. See 960 F.2d at 936. The government “concedes the Clisby error.” Appellee’s Br. 11. It nevertheless urges us to affirm because it says that Paige failed to adequately raise any Clisby issue on appeal. To adequately raise an issue on appeal, a party must do more than make “passing references to it” and cannot simply mention an issue “in a perfunc- tory manner without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). In addition, “we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Still, “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Id. After carefully reviewing Paige’s appellant’s brief, we conclude that he adequately raised the Clisby issue on appeal. USCA11 Case: 23-13827 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/04/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13827

Given the district court’s Clisby error, we vacate and remand for the district court to consider Paige’s unaddressed ineffective- assistance claims. 1 VACATED AND REMANDED.

1 To the extent that Paige raises any other issues on appeal, they are outside

the scope of the certificate of appealability, and we will not address them. See Rhode, 583 F.3d at 1290–91.