record. Id. The deference under section 2254(d) of title 28 of the United States Code. See supra Part IV.B. A federal court reviewing a state court’s determination regarding ineffective assistance of counsel has been characterized as “doubly” deferential by the Supreme Court. Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105,131 S.Ct. 770. When applying section 2254(d), “the question is not whether counsel’s actions were reasonable[,]” but “whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has explained that. “[i]n assessing counsel’s performance ..., we must apply a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” Greiner v. Wells, 417 F.3d 305, 323 (2d Cir.2005) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Lopez v. Rivera, 157
holding that counsels decision not to call witnesses was unreasonable because counsels stated reasons for disputing the witnesses credibility were not supported by objective evidence recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding that a claim of failure to call witnesses is deficient of sic it does not show what the witnesses would have testified to and how that testimony might have chanted sic the outcome holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence holding counsels decision not to call unfriendly witnesses to suggest that a third party had motive to kill the victim was not deficient