Shwayder

MEMORANDUM **

Keith Shwayder appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on six grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. The district court properly denied the motion.

Assuming Shwayder’s claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on his counsel’s failure to disclose the full extent of his conflict of interest differs from the claim Shwayder raised on direct appeal, it fails. The definition of an “actual conflict” requiring reversal under Mickens v. Taylor 1 is a conflict that actually “affected counsel’s performance.” 2 This court found on direct appeal that the conflict did not affect counsel’s performance. That finding precludes the conclusion that counsel’s conflict in this case requires reversal under Mickens.

Shwayder’s second claim, for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, also fails. 4 The district court found that counsel’s decision not to raise the sentencing issues in question was “a matter of professional judgment and strategy.” Shwayder does not challenge this finding, much less show that it is clearly erroneous. 5 Accordingly, we affirm.

Shwayder proeedurally defaulted his third…