Bagnell

*926 MEMORANDUM ***

Brandon Bagnell appeals the denial by the district court of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We affirm.

Bagnell’s arguments that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his unlawful arrest, search, and coerced confession are procedurally barred. Bagnell had an opportunity to raise these arguments at trial and on direct appeal but failed to do so, and he has shown neither cause nor actual prejudice. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 162-70 , 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982); United States v. Dunham, 767 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir.1985); Tisnado v. United States, 547 F.2d 452, 456 (9th Cir.1976); see generally Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976).

Bagnell’s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments do not support relief. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress Bagnell’s confession because such a motion would have been fruitless. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 , 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). The late discovery of the tape recording of Bagnell’s confession does not reflect poorly on defense counsel’s performance because it was not the…