case.” Aplt. Combined Opening Br. & Appl. for COA at 10. He asserts, more specifically, that “[while] the three Native-American defendants plotted[,] planned[,] and successfully committed a violent assault against an innocent inmate ... [,] the Appellant and two codefendants in fact acted in response to the aggressive provocations of Wheelock.” Id. Mr. Deberry also alleges that the government sought the maximum sentence against him out of retaliation for his previous assertions of discriminatory prosecution. The government argued before the district court that Mr. Deberry is precluded from asserting his selective prosecution claim in a § 2255 motion because the claim was previously resolved on direct criminal appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336, 342 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The district court found that “the issue
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 that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on 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 defendant could not raise in a  2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal 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