Prunty

MEMORANDUM ***

Plummer Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition and asks this court to reconsider its earlier denial of his motion for a broader certificate of appealability (COA). The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm.

We first consider whether the district court erred in denying Williams habeas relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Williams argues that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to or move to exclude the incriminating statement that he tied the victim’s ankles on the basis that the statement was obtained in violation of his right to remain silent. Without determining whether counsel’s performance was deficient, we conclude that Williams is not entitled to habeas relief because he was not prejudiced by these errors. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

At trial, the jury heard Dyas testify that Williams tied the victim’s ankles, pulled down her pants, and choked her with twine. It also heard Boyd testify that Williams searched the victim’s bag and that Williams…