tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, a financial institution to part with money or property!.]”). Here, a jury found defendant guilty of racketeering based on predicate offenses including bank fraud and wire fraud after the state introduced evidence that defendant falsely represented to First Security that the remodeling projects were completed and that First Security transferred funds to defendant based on those representations. Defendant does not contest those aspects of his trial or conviction. Defendant does not even argue on appeal that the fraudulent statements were not material. Because defendant does not identify any prejudice and we discern none, we do not exercise our discretion to correct any error. See State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (<HOLDING>). In conclusion, we hold that the trial court
holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that error is harmless if there is substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction holding that there is no prejudice if an error had little likelihood of affecting the verdict holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict