28 U.S.C. § 2255. This Court issued a certificate of appealability to resolve whether the district court, contrary to Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 938 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), and Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009), failed to consider three arguments that Cossino raised in an addendum to his motion to vacate. We vacate and remand.

When reviewing a district court's denial of a § 2255 motion, we typically review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. Rhode v. UnitedStates, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir. 2009).

We have also applied the principle announced in Clisby to claims raised in a § 2255 motion. See Rhode v. United States , 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) ("[T]he district court was required to comply with Clisby and resolve all claims for relief raised in [petitioner's] § 2255 motion."); see also Gay v. United States , 816 F.2d 614, 616 n.1 (11th Cir. 1987) ("[T]he principles developed in habeas cases also apply to § 2255 motions."). Under this analysis, a claim for relief "is any allegation of a constitutional violation."

We have since determined that the principles announced in Clisby apply with full force to claims raised in a § 2255 motion. See Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Gay v. United States, 816 F.2d 614, 616 n.1 (11th Cir. 1987) ("[T]he principles developed in habeas cases also apply to § 2255 motions."). In Long v. United States, we applied Clisby to a district court's dismissal of a § 2255 motion as time-barred, concluding that the district court must resolve all claims a petitioner raises for tolling of the limitations period.

We do not consider those arguments. See Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2009) ("[This Court's] scope of review is limited to the issues specified in the COA."); Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[A]n issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.") (quotation marks omitted). --------

The denial of a § 2255 motion to vacate presents a mixed question of law and fact, and we review the district judge's factual conclusions for clear error and questions of law de novo. Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and, consequently, must be construed liberally.

"When reviewing the district court's denial of a § 2255 motion, we review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo." Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir. 2009). A prisoner who fails to raise an issue on direct appeal is procedurally barred from raising that claim in a § 2255 motion, absent a showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

" In re Boshears, 110 F.3d 1538, 1540 (11th Cir. 1997) (addressing an application for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition); see also Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) ("[T]he legal principles applicable to § 2254 proceedings generally apply to

"When reviewing the district court's denial of a § 2255 motion, we review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo." Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.

In Clisby v. Jones, we directed district courts to resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition, regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied. 960 F.2d 925, 935-36 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (addressing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions); see also Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (applying Clisby to § 2255 motions). We stated that this rule was necessary because we were "disturbed by the growing number of cases in which we are forced to remand for consideration of issues the district court chose not to resolve."