Escobedo

MEMORANDUM **

Escobedo appeals from the denial of his relief requested pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Whether Escobedo received ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed de novo. Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir.2002). To prevail, Escobedo must demonstrate (1) that counsel’s actions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance, and (2) that Escobe-do was prejudiced by reason of counsel’s actions. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-90 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Mancuso, 292 F.3d at 953-54 . We will address the prejudice *306 issue. Fields v. Woodford, 309 F.3d 1095, 1107 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

Escobedo must “affirmatively prove prejudice.” Strickland 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . To do so, Escobedo is required to show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine…