Moeller

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Helfrich and William Moeller appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their respective 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions for postconviction relief. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of these cases, we will not recount it here.

Appellants claim that their trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not moving to suppress the evidence seized during the execution of the first search warrant on June 27, 1999. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to bring a Fourth Amendment challenge, the defendant must prove “that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability” that the exclusion of the evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986).

Appellants argue that there was not probable cause to support the issuance of the June 27th search warrant. In order for there to be probable cause, only a showing of a probability of criminal conduct is necessary, not a prima facie showing. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d…