_____________ No. 95-3455NI _____________ Lloyd E. Humphreys, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Northern v. * District of Iowa. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _____________ Submitted: May 2, 1996 Filed: May 7, 1996 _____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. _____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Lloyd E. Humphreys guilty of tax offenses, and we affirmed his conviction. See United States v. Humphreys, 982 F.2d 254 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 61 (1993). Humphreys then filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and the district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. Humphreys appeals.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we are convinced that Humphreys is not entitled to § 2255 relief. See United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 224 (1995).

Some of the grounds asserted in Humphreys's motion were resolved against him on direct appeal and cannot be relitigated here. See Humphreys, 982 F.2d at 257-62; Dall v. United States, 957 F.2d 571, 572-73 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Other grounds asserted by Humphreys could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, but were not, and are thus procedurally defaulted. See Anderson v. United States, 25 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Smith, 843 F.2d 1148, 1149 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). We reject Humphreys's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel, both as an independent ground and as cause excusing his default. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984); Reid v. United States, 976 F.2d 446, 447-48 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 945 (1993).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-