his claim, Me-dearis also claims that the trial court’s refusal to permit the letter to be used for impeachment purposes prejudiced his defense and his ability to obtain a fair trial. Id. at 18-1, pp. 11-12. A three judge panel of the Eighth Circuit, however, addressed this issue in painstaking detail on direct appeal, Medeans, 380 F.3d. at 1056-60, and concluded that “the use of the letter would not have influenced or altered the outcome of the trial”, and that the trial court’s refusal to allow the use of it was “harmless error[,]” 380 F.3d at 1060. Granted, the panel decision was by a 2-1 margin, but rehearing by the panel and rehearing en banc were both subsequently denied. [¶ 48] Although courts ordinaril L.Ed.2d 803 (2003); Collins v. Dormire, 240 F.3d 724, 727-28 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Bates v. Blackburn, 805 F.2d 569,
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant the defendant an evidentiary hearing  because the defendant failed to proffer any evidence that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record