performance was deficient, and (2) trial counsel’s deficiency resulted in prejudice to the defendant. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Both the “deficiency” and the “prejudice” prongs must each be satisfied, or it cannot be said that the adversarial process was so lacking that it rendered an unreliable result, thereby denying Petitioner a fair trial. See id. To show he was deprived of a fair trial, Petitioner must overcome the presumption that counsel rendered reasonable professional assistance by showing counsel’s errors prejudiced his defense to such a degree that there exists a reasonable probability that if those errors were not committed by counsel, the outcome of trial would have been different. See id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (<HOLDING>); Lockhart v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 1275, 1283
holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial holding that a reasonable probability is one that in the judgment of the reviewing court is  sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding citation omitted holding that improper prosecutorial references did not raise a reasonable probability that but for the remarks the outcome would be different due to sufficient independent evidence establishing guilt holding reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome