failing to raise these ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. Also, Mr. Metoyer asserts the federal district court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Metoyer raised ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims for the first time in his application for post-conviction relief. The OCCA deemed the claims waived because they could have been brought on direct appeal. Metoyer v. State, No. PC 99-1458, Order at 2-3 (Okla. Crim.App. Jan. 7, 2000) (unpublished). This procedural bar will be adequate if (1) trial and appellate counsel differ and (2) the claim can be resolved solely on consideration of the trial record. English v. Cody, 146 F.3d 1257, 1264 (10th Cir.1998). But see generally Massaro v. United States, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 1694-96, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, although trial and appellate counsel
holding ineffectivetrialassistance claim may be brought in 28 usc  2255 proceeding regardless of whether claim could have been raised on direct appeal 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 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 that the fact that an ineffectiveness claim is raised and adjudicated on direct appeal will not procedurally bar an ineffectiveness claim in a proceeding under 28 usc  2255 where new reasons are advanced in support of that claim holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding