identifying the race of the relevant venirepersons, his underlying claim lacked merit and counsel could not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise it. 735 A.2d at 695. 7 . The District Court granted the petition and awarded Appellee a new penalty hearing based on Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988) (vacating a death sentence because there was a substantial probability that the jury may have interpreted the court's instructions and verdict form as precluding it from considering any mitigation evidence unless all jurors unanimously agreed on the existence of a particular mitigating circumstance). The United States Court of Appeals for the Thix-d Circuit, however, reversed the grant of habeas relief. Hackett v. Price, 381 F.3d 281 (3rd Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, Hackett v. Folino, 544 U.S.
holding that there must be sufficient evidence in the record to affirmatively demonstrate the courts consideration of the relevant section 3553a factors holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it holding that hackett failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction and verdict form in a way that prevented the consideration of coxistitutionally relevant evidence holding that a district court did not err by submitting a special verdict form to the jury this particular verdict form did not specify a standard of proof holding that a beeman error was harmless because the challenged instruction could not have affected the jury deliberation and verdict