a separate, pecuniary motive in making the trips, but this argument -was rejected on appeal and is foreclosed by Third Circuit precedent. Id. (explaining that the Government was required to prove only that " 'a significant or motivating purpose' of the trav- ' el was to facilitate the abuse,” and that the evidence was sufficient to support such a finding) (quoting United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004)). 18 . Tr. 128:17-133:19 (11/1/12). 19 . See generally Dierolf v. Thompson, Civil No. 1:CV-11-01999, 2013 WL 2896819, at *20 (M.D. Pa. June 12, 2013) ("Decisions by trial counsel with regard to examination of witnesses are strategic by nature and necessitate a strong level of deference to the attorney’s assessment.”) ( WL 1651270, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 14, 2015) (<HOLDING>). 24 . 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v.
holding that request for resentencing based on pepper was not cognizable in a  2255 proceeding absent a showing of a complete miscarriage of justice holding that resentencing is required holding that constitution and courts jurisdiction allow for twolevel increase on resentencing holding that the application of revised  2255 which would have barred the petitioner who had filed his first  2255 motion prior to aedpas enactment from filing a second  2255 motion would have had retroactive effect because the petitioner might well have waited to file that initial motion had he foreseen aedpas revision of  2255 holding that pepper did not allow petitioner to seek a resentencing under  2255