Appellant did not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) issue in his direct appeal (based on counsel’s failure to accept the court’s offer of a continuance when prosecutors learned, after appellant’s murder trial had begun, of a bullet recovered in appellant’s car). When he subsequently raised the issue under 28 USC 2255, the District Court found his claim procedurally defaulted because he could have raised it on direct appeal. Here, the United States Supreme Court reversed, finding that an IAC claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under Section 2255 whether or not it was brought on direct appeal.