waived all his rights to present mitigating evidence.” Id. The federal district court determined that counsel did as petitioner wished and that petitioner failed to show he would not have pleaded guilty if counsel had more thoroughly investigated mitigating evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact. See Miller v. Champion, 161 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir.1998) (applying AED-PA). “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense.... ” Boyd, 179 F.3d at 913 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (<HOLDING>). To prove deficient performance, petitioner
recognizing that the twopart test applies to prosecutions under 18 usc  1152 and 1153 holding that ineffectiveness of postconviction counsel could establish cause to reopen judgment but ineffectiveness of postconviction appellate counsel could not recognizing that test for counsel ineffectiveness under strickland and pierce is identical holding this twopart test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based upon ineffectiveness of counsel holding that counsel cannot raise his or her own ineffectiveness