to a substance containing D-methamphetamine; (2) “methamphetamine (actual),” which is pure or uncut D-methamphetamine; (3) "ice,” which is a substance containing D-methamphetamine of at least 80% purity; and (4) "L-methamphetamine.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.10) (Drug Equivalency Tables) (Nov. 1, 1992). Under those and the current guidelines, methamphetamine (actual) and ice are treated much more harshly than D-meth d.2d 203 (1997); United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir.1996) (finding that petitioner “ha[d] not met his heavy burden of showing a reasonable probability that his sentence would have been different if his counsel had required the government to prove that the offense involved d-methamphetamine’'); United States v. Acklen, 97 F.3d 750, 751 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1017, 136
holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony holding that defendant failed to establish prejudice from counsels failure to argue at sentencing that drug involved was lmethamphetamine and not dmethamphetamine holding that the trial courts failure to have each bench conference and ruling properly transcribed was not reversible error when the defendant failed to show that he was prevented from presenting any relevant evidence and failed to establish that any prejudice resulted from the absence in the record holding that the defendant could not establish prejudice for trial counsels failure to hire an expert when the experts testimony would not have changed the nature of the states evidence holding that there was no ineffective assistance due to appellate counsels failure to challenge the trial courts denial of the motion to change venue because the defendant failed to show actual prejudice