four substantive issues: (1) he was not brought to trial within the time required by the Speedy Trial Act; (2) the evidence seized from the suitcase he provided to Loos and Escobar should have been suppressed; (3) his rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated where previously suppressed evidence was introduced at trial; and (4) probable cause did not exist to search his home. Of course, Sylvester is prevented from raising the legal issues that underlie each of these claims. They were not raised earlier by any of his lawyers during trial or on appeal, and the time to raise them has expired. A claim that could have been raised on direct appeal generally is not reviewable in a section 2255 motion. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Regalado v. United States, 334 F.3d 520, 528
holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review holding that review of counsel ineffectiveness claims should be deferred until collateral review holding that the apprendi decision is not applicable on collateral review holding that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective counsel in a collateral proceeding not on direct review holding that even the voluntariness and intelligence of a guilty plea can be attacked on collateral review only if first challenged on direct review