on the basis of conflicting affidavits made by Santana and trial counsel. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Santana’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal as requested in violation of United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1993), and ordered additional briefing on this issue. See 4th Cir. R. 22(a). After reviewing the arguments and record on appeal, we vacate and remand for an evidentiary hearing on Santana’s claim that trial counsel failed to file a notice of appeal as requested. An attorney who fails to file an appeal after being instructed to do so by his client is per se ineffective. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 476-77, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); see also Peak, 992 F.2d at 42 (<HOLDING>). This is true even if the defendant has waived
holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy holding in context of sixth amendment ineffective assistance of counsel based on asserted failure of counsel to file appeal established prejudice per se for purpose of establishing habeas review jurisdiction as if proven such failure constitutes denial of a fundamental constitutional right recognizing reluctance to designate any error as per se ineffective assistance holding that criminal defense counsels failure to file notice of appeal when requested to do so is per se ineffective assistance holding on appeal from a habeas corpus denial that counsel was not ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal because of defendants escape