Ramont Lamont Adams V United States
USCA11 Case: 24-10219 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10219
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
RAMONT LAMONT ADAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:22-cv-01337-TCB,
1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA-1
USCA11 Case: 24-10219 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10219
____________________
Before JORDAN, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ramont Lamont Adams, a federal prisoner proceeding pro
se, appeals the denial of his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. We granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on a single
issue: whether the District Court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d
925 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by failing to address Adams’s claim
that trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss his case
based on the alleged untimeliness of the indictment. We conclude
that the District Court did not resolve that distinct constitutional
claim and so we vacate the District Court’s order and remand for
further proceedings.
I.
Adams was convicted in 2021 of robbery and aggravated
sexual abuse based on conduct occurring in 2017. He filed a pro se
§ 2255 motion and an amended motion raising multiple claims. In
two supplemental filings, Adams argued that his trial counsel ren-
dered ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss the indict-
ment for speedy trial violations. Adams asserted that: (1) the gov-
ernment failed to indict him within 30 days of the crime; and (2) he
was not brought to trial within 70 days of indictment, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
A magistrate judge directed the government to respond to
Adams’s supplements. The government contended that speedy
USCA11 Case: 24-10219 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025 Page: 3 of 4
24-10219 Opinion of the Court 3
trial exclusions applied and that no prejudice resulted. The magis-
trate judge then recommended denying relief, finding no ineffec-
tive assistance based on the time between indictment and trial. But
the report and recommendation did not address Adams’s separate
assertion that the indictment was untimely in relation to the date
of the offense. The District Court adopted the recommendation
without further elaboration.
II.
District courts must address all constitutional claims raised
in a § 2255 motion. Clisby, 960 F.2d at 936. Although courts need
not sift through filings to divine claims not clearly presented, see
Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 572 F.3d 1327, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009), pro
se pleadings are to be construed liberally, see Dupree v. Warden, 715
F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2013). So if a constitutional claim—such
as ineffective assistance of counsel—is fairly presented, a district
court must address it. Clisby, 960 F.2d at 936.
Here, Adams’s supplemental motions presented two distinct
ineffective-assistance claims: (1) that his attorney failed to object to
the delay between indictment and trial, and (2) that his attorney
failed to challenge the two-year delay between the alleged offense
and the filing of the indictment. The District Court addressed only
the former.
Because Adams’s second claim was plainly presented and
not addressed, the District Court’s failure to adjudicate it requires
remand under Clisby. See id. at 935. “We do not address whether
[Adams’s] claim is meritorious. Under Clisby, our role is to vacate
USCA11 Case: 24-10219 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10219
the judgment without prejudice and remand the case to the district
court for consideration of the unaddressed claim.” Dupree, 715 F.3d
at 1299.
III.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated without prej-
udice, and the case is remanded for consideration of Adams’s claim
that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the timeliness
of the indictment.
VACATED AND REMANDED.