co-defendant. “In reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review the district court’s legal rulings de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1181 (10th Cir.2001). Due Process Right to Testify Williams contends that his due process rights were violated when his trial counsel denied him his right to testify. He claims he repeatedly told his attorney he wanted to testify, but counsel rested his case without ever putting him on the stand. The district court refused to reach the merits of this claim, finding that Williams never raised this issue on direct appeal, and had not made any showing of cause for this failure or prejudice arising therefrom. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Allen, 16 F.3d 377, 378
holding that claims not asserted on direct appeal may not be raised in  2255 motion absent showing of cause for and actual prejudice resulting from failure to raise them holding in a  2255 case that the failure to raise a bailey claim on direct review can be overcome by a showing of actual innocence holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding holding that defendant could not raise in a  2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal