Opinion ID: 810377
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedurally-barred issues

Text: With respect to the claims the district court found procedurally barred, the court explained, citing United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336, 341 (10th Cir. 1996), that “[a] § 2255 motion is not available to test the legality of a matter which should have been raised on direct appeal.” As we stated in Cox, “[w]hen a defendant fails to raise an issue on direct appeal, he is barred from raising the issue in a § 2255 proceeding, unless he establishes either cause excusing the procedural default and prejudice resulting from the error or a fundamental miscarriage of justice if the claim is not considered.” Cox, 83 F.3d at 341. The district court concluded, again correctly, that all of Mr. Lichfield’s issues except his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could have been raised on direct appeal. Thus, they were procedurally barred, absent a -6- demonstration of cause, prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Mr. Lichfield suggests to us that his counsel’s ineffectiveness caused the failure to file a direct appeal. The district court did not address this issue, as it concluded Mr. Lichfield made no effort to establish cause for and prejudice from the defaulted claims. We agree with that conclusion and will not address an argument for cause and prejudice not raised below.