I believe the prior panel was thinking along these lines when it held there was no prejudice even if there were a variance. That determination is the law of the case and binds us today. See, e.g., Baranski v. United States, 515 F.3d 857, 861 (8th Cir.2008) (“[T]he law of the case ... will not be disturbed absent an intervening change in controlling authority.”). Counsel could not have been ineffective where, as here, raising the argument would not have changed the result of the proceeding. Moreover, far from deficient performance, counsel’s decision not to raise this issue before the district court or on direct appeal, and thus not risk a much higher Guidelines sentence for crack distribution, may well have been a sound tactical choice. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (<HOLDING>). I would affirm the district court’s denial of
recognizing district courts wide latitude in imposing supervised release conditions recognizing defense counsel must have wide latitude in making tactical decisions recognizing the need to give trial courts latitude in making individualized security determinations recognizing a hearing officers latitude in making credibility calls recognizing the wide latitude district courts enjoy in interpreting and administering their own rules