# Willie Clisby, Cross-Appellant v. Charlie Jones, Warden, Holman Unit, Alabama Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellee

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 4, 1992 · 960 F.2d 925

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482790

## Case

- **Full name:** Willie CLISBY, Petitioner-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Charlie JONES, Warden, Holman Unit, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant, Cross-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 4, 1992
- **Citations:** 960 F.2d 925; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 8906; 1992 WL 91127
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Birch
- **Judges:** Tjoflat, Fay, Kravitch, Hatchett, Anderson, Edmondson, Cox, Birch, Dubina
- **Cited by:** 318 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482790

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the procedural reasonableness inquiry looks at the court’s explanation of the section 3553(a) factors while the substantive reasonableness inquiry examines whether the factors actually justified the resulting sentence
- concluding that, even though the respondent urged this Court to consider the claims not addressed by the district court, this Court could “do no more than remand the case to the district court to consider all remaining claims”
- holding that district court must resolve all claims for relief premised on alleged constitutional violations which are raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus whether habeas relief is granted or denied
- holding that, when a district court fails to resolve all claims for relief that a habeas petitioner raises, this Court will vacate the judgment and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims
- concluding that, even though the respondent urged us to consider the claims not addressed by the district court, we could “do no more than remand the case to the district court to consider all remaining claims”

## Opinion text

BIRCH, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur in the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482790. Public record. Not legal advice.