below, the additional mitigation evidence that might have been uncovered is not compelling when weighed against the case in aggravation. The compelling aggravation case included evidence of eight sexual assaults, and the jury had just convicted Heishman of a calculated, cold-blooded murder of another rape victim to prevent her from testifying-a truly heinous crime. Thus, even if Heishman had offered the additional evidence of his difficult upbringing, he has not shown a reasonable probability that the jury would have imposed a sentence of life without parole. See, e.g., Wong v. Belmontes, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 383, 390, 175 L.Ed.2d 328 (2009) (per curiam) (finding no prejudice where the aggravation evidence was “simply overwhelming”); Rhoades v. Henry, 596 F.3d 1170, 1195 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Counsel’s investigation of Heishman’s
holding that ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when there is deficient performance and prejudice which is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different holding that to establish prejudice there must be a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that petitioners newly proffered facts  add too little and the aggravating circumstances are too strong to make it reasonably probable that the sentencing decision would have been different but for counsels performance holding that to establish stricklandpierce prejudice in the appellate representation context the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the direct appeal proceeding would have been different but for counsels deficient performance