UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-7788

JONATHAN WAYNE HADRICK,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CR-92-402-JFM, CA-97-1423-JFM)

Submitted: July 7, 1998

Decided: August 20, 1998

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jonathan Wayne Hadrick, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Wayne Hadrick appeals from the district court's order
denying his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994
& Supp. 1998). For the following reasons, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. Hadrick was convicted of violat-
ing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1994), which prohibits a felon from pos-
sessing a firearm and ammunition. This court affirmed his conviction.
See United States v. Hadrick, 34 F.3d 1067 (4th Cir. Sept. 1, 1994)
(unpublished). He subsequently sent the district court a letter request-
ing assistance in obtaining certain documents. Accompanying the let-
ter, Hadrick filed a § 2255 motion that raised seven alleged errors.
The district court denied his motion.

Even assuming Hadrick could obtain the requested documents, his
claims lack merit. With the exception of his Lopez claim and his inef-
fective assistance of counsel claims, Hadrick could have raised his
claims on direct appeal, but he failed to do so. Therefore those non-
constitutional claims that were not raised on direct appeal may not be
raised in this collateral proceeding. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465,
477 n.10 (1976). Additionally, those claims that were decided by this
court on direct appeal may not be asserted again in collateral proceed-
ings. Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182 (4th Cir. 1976);
United States v. Everette, 39 F.3d 1178 (4th Cir. 1994) (unpublished).
Dispensing with those claims which were inappropriately argued, we
now consider Hadricks' remaining claims.

Hadricks's ineffective assistance of counsel claims also lack merit.
Although he claims that his counsel was ineffective by failing to
object to prejudicial and inflammatory remarks made by the prosecu-
tor during closing argument, he fails to show that"there is a reason-
able probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Likewise, he claims that his
counsel was ineffective by failing to produce a witness whose testi-
mony would have been both admissible and critical to his case, but
he fails to make a proffer of what favorable testimony the witness
would have given. See Bassette v. Thompson, 915 F.2d 932, 940-41

                    2
(4th Cir. 1990). As to Hadrick's claim that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitu-
tional in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), it is
clearly established that § 922(g)(1) is a valid exercise of congressio-
nal power. See United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 1996);
United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    3
