Mikalajunas, 186 F.3d at 493. 3. Bar on Relitigating Claims Brought on Direct Appeal A petitioner is generally not permitted to relitigate issues brought on direct appeal in a collateral attack. Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). Accordingly, courts may “refuse to reach the merits of a constitutional claim previously raised and rejected on direct appeal.” Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 720-21, 113 S.Ct. 1745, 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (collecting cases). Exceptional circumstances, however, such as an intervening change in the law, may warrant a departure from this law-of-the-case doctrine. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 342-47, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. United States, 178 F.3d 790, 796
holding that when relevant substantive law changed after the petitioners trial and unsuccessful appeal the petitioner could file a  2255 motion for collateral relief based on the intervening change in the law holding that an ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under  2255 whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal holding premagwood that where a first  2255 motion was granted so movant could file a direct appeal the second  2255 motion was not a successive motion under aedpa holding that a  2255 hearing is permitted on an issue previously addressed on direct appeal when there has been an intervening change in the law holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result