motion currently before us on appeal followed. In it, Saikaly challenges the quantity of drugs attributed to him for purposes of sentencing and the criminal history category established pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. We will not review on appeal claims presented in § 2255 habeas proceedings that were not presented previously on direct appeal. See Chandler v. Jones, 813 F.2d 773, 777 (6th Cir.1987) (“It is a well-established principle of appellate review that appellate courts do not address claims not properly presented below.... [T]his court relie[s] on this principle in rejecting attempts by habeas petitioners to assert new claims on appeal not presented in their petition or proceedings below.”). See also United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The issues regarding the quantity of drugs
holding that this court follows the rule that nonconstitutional sentencing errors that have not been raised on direct appeal have been waived and generally may not be reviewed by way of 28 usc  2255 holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding holding that claims not properly raised on direct appeal will not be considered as a basis for collateral relief holding that courts may review nonconstitutional claims 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