and reply briefs claiming that his attorney was ineffective, that his sentence should not have been enhanced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000), and that his conviction violates the Sixth Amendment because the indictment to which he pled guilty charged him with possession of fifty grams “or more” of cocaine base. The Government has filed a brief responding to Black-mon’s pro se supplemental opening brief. Finding no error, we affirm the district court’s judgment. In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and have s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his pro se supplemental reply brief, we find that ineffective assistance is not apparent on the record. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, should he wish to do so,
holding that to establish prejudice sufficient to warrant finding of ineffective assistance the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different holding that a petitioner must show  that the outcome of his appeal would have been different had counsel raised the issue