Nash

MEMORANDUM **

This is Emmett Nash’s second appeal from judgments denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The first appeal, decided October 24, 2000, resulted in a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to decide questions of fact that this court held to be inappropriate for summary disposition. After a two-day hearing, the district court made findings of fact and again denied the writ. We have examined the record, and affirm the judgment. The parties are familiar with the facts and thus we do not recite them here. Analysis

A. Breakdown in Communication

Nash contends that a breakdown in communication with his attorney, Harvy Chamberlin, stemmed from a disagreement over trial tactics. At a threshold *510 level, Nash fails to overcome the presumption that Chamberlin’s decisions were the result of reasonable trial strategies. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-91 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We agree with the district court’s findings that both Nash and Chamberlin initially agreed to exculpate Nash without implicating his brother Jose, and, in the alternative, to confuse the record and litter the trial with seeds of error for…