Woodroof

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Woodroof appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . 1 Because the relevant facts are known to the parties they are not repeated here.

Under the familiar two-prong test for effectiveness, established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), Woodroof must show that counsel’s performance was both objectively unreasonable and prejudicial. Id. at 693 . Judicial scrutiny of an attorney’s performance “must be highly deferential.” Id. at 689 . To show prejudice, Woodroof must demonstrate that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Id. at 694 .

Woodroof argues that conflict between himself and trial counsel resulted in a total lack of communication, thereby denying him effective assistance of counsel. The basis of Woodroofs claim is that counsel yelled at him on multiple occasions and allegedly never explained to him the elements of conspiracy. Woodroof argues that but for this breakdown in communication, he would have accepted a plea offer made…