in original). With the possible exception of his claim that he was not permitted to testify, Man-giardi has not satisfied either prong of the Strickland test. Because each of Mangiardi’s claims relating to the proceedings is meritless, appellate counsel was not unreasonable for any failure to raise any of them on direct appeal. See Williams, 166 F.Supp.2d at 305 (finding that where each of the claims raised in the defendant’s § 2255 motion was meritless, appellate counsel was not deficient for failing to raise them on direct appeal). The same reasoning applies to appellate counsel’s failure to raise Man-giardi’s claims for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See id., James v. Superintendent of SCI Huntington, No. CIV.A. 97-2864, 2000 WL 5196, at *3 (E.D.Pa. January 4, 2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as discussed above, claims for
holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue