standards in assessing the effectiveness of appellate counsel.” Cook, 45 F.3d at 392. When the basis of an ineffective-assistance claim is the failure by appellate counsel to raise an issue on appeal, “we must look to the merits of the omitted issue.” United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 797 (10th Cir.2006). “If the omitted issue is without merit, counsel’s failure to raise it ‘does not constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” Cook, 45 F.3d at 393 (quoting United States v. Dixon, 1 F.3d 1080, 1084 n. 5 (10th Cir.1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, if counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise a claim on appeal, a defendant cannot satisfy the cause requirement to excuse his procedural default of the claim. See Challoner, 583 F.3d at 750 (<HOLDING>). The district court analyzed and rejected each
holding that the defendant had not demonstrated that his attorney was ineffective in failing to raise an issue on direct appeal and thus that the defendant had failed to show cause excusing the procedural default holding that petitioner did not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue holding that to show cause to overcome procedural default a defendant must demonstrate that something prevented him from raising his claims on direct appeal emphasis added holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review