a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. In raising an ineffective assistance claim, the petitioner must first identify the acts or omissions alleged not to be the result of “reasonable professional judgment.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Next, the court must determine whether those acts or omissions fall outside of the “wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To prove prejudice, a convicted defendant must affirmatively prove that the alleged attorney errors “actually had an adverse effect on the defen s case. And Petitioner claims his trial counsel did not “know the law surrounding” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Section 2255 Mot. 7. At the suppression
holding that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendments proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction holding that officer may order driver out of vehicle once lawfully detained for traffic violation holding that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment