Id. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694,104 S.Ct. 2052. B. Petitioner’s Grounds Relating to Trial Counsel Petitioner raises three grounds that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. All of the grounds are meritless. First, Petitioner’s argument that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he “failed to know the law surrounding the validity of a traffic stop” is without merit. Section 2255 Mot. 6. Petitioner claims his trial counsel relied on United States v. Mosley, 454 F.3d 249, 251 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>), which, Petitioner asserts, did not relate to
holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle holding that a dog sniff of a vehicle during a traffic stop conducted absent reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity did not violate the fourth amendment because it did not implicate any legitimate privacy interest holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction holding that government may not use evidence found during illegal stop against any occupant of vehicle holding that the vehicle of a recent occupant may be searched incident to arrest as an exception to the warrant requirement where it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest