us to “refrain from adjudicating these issues at this time because the record on appeal is incomplete,” and because the appropriate tool for raising these claims is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas corpus petition. However, the government contends that if we do address DeCecco’s ineffective-assistance claims, we should reject them because the representation provided by defense counsel was not substandard and did not prejudice DeCecco. Because the present record is sufficient for us to conclude that DeCecco’s defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, we find it efficient to address his claims now. None of the instances of allegedly ineffective assistance to which DeCecco points caused him prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (<HOLDING>). The district court clearly decided to deny
holding that noneonstitutional errors in civil suits are harmless only if it is highly probable that the errors did not affect the outcome of the case holding that even if a defendant shows that particular errors of counsel were unreasonable he must show that they actually had an adverse effect on the defense and not merely that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding holding that the combined effect of trial counsels errors should be considered holding that a habeas petitioner must show that counsels errors  actually prejudiced him holding counsel cannot be ineffective based on errors that the appellate court determined on direct appeal were not errors plain or otherwise