F.3d 1166, 1182 (10th Cir.2002) (same), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1004, 123 S.Ct. 1911, 155 L.Ed.2d 835 (2003). The government introduced evidence of several threats Sampson made to correctional officers and others after he was charged in this case. Although a close question, the evidence of possession of a “shank” both before and after the murders, an attempted escape from prison, and threats to correctional officers and others, examined in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient to permit a rational jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sampson was likely to commit criminal acts of violence in the future which would be a continuing and serious threat to the lives and safety of prison officials and inmates. See Swisher v. True, 325 F.3d 225, 232 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 971, 123 S.Ct. 2668,
holding that shank possession combined with threats was sufficient to show future dangerousness under virginia law and therefore petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice for strickland purposes holding that any reduction in sentence constitutes substantial prejudice for purposes of strickland analysis holding petitioner demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice by proving a claim under strickland holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test holding with little discussion that the oklahoma future dangerousness aggravator was not applicable to every murderer and therefore was not unconstitutionally overbroad