was not clearly erroneous. B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Alternatively, Rodriguez alleges that his counsel was ineffective at rearraignment in erroneously advising him to assent to the factual basis despite his disagreements "with portions concerning various people working for him. The district court explicitly stated, however, that it was relying on the proffer, and not on the factual basis, for its finding that Rodriguez was a manager or supervisor; and this court, too, has reached its determination on the enhancement issue without reliance on the factual basis. As a result, Rodriguez was not bound by the factual basis and cannot show any prejudice arising from his attorney’s performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion Finding no clear error in the
recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance holding that a defendant must show prejudice resulting from counsels deficient performance to prevail on an ineffectiveassistance claim holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim