guideline, Mr. Horey’s counsel did not object to application of this enhancement. Thus, his total offense level was adjusted to level 37 and his criminal history category was raised to VI, giving a range of 360 months to life. Mr. Horey was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment, the minimum sentence under the guidelines. Mr. Horey’s appellate counsel did not raise the error on direct appeal. But in 1998, Mr. Horey filed a timely motion to vacate his sentence, alleging, inter alia, improper enhancement and ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court correctly noted that his claim for relief would be procedurally barred absent a successful showing of cause excusing his procedural default and prejudice to his defense. See United States v. Cook, 45 F.3d 388, 392 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court analyzed the merits of
holding that to demonstrate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel petition must establish that the alleged error was prejudicial in fact holding that pennsylvanias test for ineffective assistance of counsel is not contrary to strickland holding that petitioner may establish requisite cause and prejudice by demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel using the deficient performance and prejudicial effect analysis set forth in strickland recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims holding that to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must demonstrate that counsel was constitutionally deficient and as a result defendant was prejudiced