516 U.S. 193, 194, 116 S.Ct. 600, 602, 133 L.Ed.2d 571 (1996) (per curiam) (“In Pioneer, we held that a party could in some circumstances rely on his attorney’s inadvertent failure to file a proof of claim in a timely manner ... as ‘excusable neglect’ under the bankruptcy rules.”) (emphasis added). Second, both Pioneer and Clark involved situations where a litigant’s attorney, in good faith, misinterpreted the federal rules and, as a result, filed the litigant’s notice of appeal late. See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 396, 113 S.Ct. 1489; Clark, 51 F.3d at 42-44. By contrast, Clark alleges the wholesale denial of his right to appeal due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Gipson, 985 F.2d 212, 215 (5th Cir.1993); Sharp v. Puckett, 930 F.2d 450, 452 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In an unpublished opinion, we vacated a
holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test holding that the prejudice prong of strickland was not met in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutors misstatement of law where the trial court properly instructed the jury recognizing the right to counsel on appeal holding that when counsel denied the petitioner the right to appeal neither the strickland prejudice prong nor the harmlesserror test is appropriate holding that the strickland test applies to claims  that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal