United States v. Sandchase Cody, 998 F.3d 912

Sandchase Cody was convicted in 2010 on multiple drug and firearms counts, including a felon-in-possession conviction that carried a 15-year mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
In 2016 the Eleventh Circuit authorized a second-or-successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in light of Johnson v. United States (invalidating the ACCA residual clause) because it was unclear whether two state convictions qualified as violent felonies.
Cody and the government stipulated the state convictions did not trigger the ACCA; Cody asked to vacate the judgment and obtain full resentencing on all counts, while the government asked only to correct the felon-in-possession sentence to remove the ACCA enhancement.
The district court corrected only the felon-in-possession sentence (to the 120-month statutory maximum), denied a certificate of appealability (COA), and entered an amended criminal judgment and a § 2255 final order.
Cody appealed; the Eleventh Circuit questioned whether his notices of appeal sought review of the criminal judgment, the § 2255 order, or both; the panel and parties briefed whether a COA was required to challenge the district court’s choice of remedy.
The Eleventh Circuit held that the COA is required to challenge the choice of remedy under § 2255 and dismissed Cody’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a certificate of appealability is required to appeal a district court’s choice to correct only an illegal sentence rather than order full resentencing under § 2255	Cody: district court erred by correcting the felon‑in‑possession sentence without resentencing all counts; this is appealable	Government: COA is required for appeals that challenge aspects of the § 2255 proceeding; none issued here	COA is required to challenge the choice of remedy under § 2255; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the district court’s choice among the four § 2255 remedies is part of the “proceeding under section 2255” in § 2253(c)(1)(B)	Cody relied on Fourth Circuit’s Hadden to treat the remedy choice as outside § 2255 proceeding	Government: statutory text shows the remedial choice is integral to the § 2255 proceeding	The remedial choice is part of the § 2255 proceeding; Hadden is not controlling here
Whether an appeal from an amended criminal judgment that raises § 2255 issues can proceed without a COA	Cody argued the criminal-judgment appeal could proceed directly	Government relied on Futch: to the extent the appeal raises § 2255 claims, a COA is required; direct-appeal review allowed only for post‑§ 2255 implementation errors	If the appeal raises § 2255 issues (like choice of remedy), a COA is required; implementation errors at resentencing may be reviewed directly without COA

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA required before courts of appeals may rule on merits of habeas appeals)
United States v. Futch, 518 F.3d 887 (11th Cir. 2008) (appeals from amended criminal judgments that raise § 2255 issues require a COA; implementation errors at resentencing reviewable on direct appeal)
United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (treated remedy choice differently; not controlling here)
United States v. Brown, 879 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018) (describes the four statutory remedies available under § 2255)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutional; gateway for Cody’s successive § 2255)