States v. Hernandez-Rivas, 348 F.3d 595, 598 (7th Cir.2003) (“The general rule within the Seventh Circuit is that if a party fails to file an objection with the district court, he or she ‘waives the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal.’ ” (quoting United States v. Brown, 79 F.3d 1499, 1503 (7th Cir. 1996))). Even more, Ervin did not request an evidentiary hearing on his motion, and further accepted the government’s representations regarding Arreola’s misconduct and the government’s lack of knowledge of the misconduct. Similarly, the district court granted Zambrana’s request for an evidentiary hearing, and at that hearing he was allowed to present nine witnesses in support of his motion. The district court never attempted to limit the scope of the hear (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Wyoming v. Livingston, 443 F.3d 1211, 1225-26
holding that any error the district court may have committed at evidentiary hearing addressing ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim was harmless because defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by counsels alleged shortcomings holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless