With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". outweighed any unfair prejudice of implied gang membership. We also find it telling that the Iowa Supreme Court conducted an independent review of the record and concluded Pfau’s appeal was frivolous. Even though Pfau’s appellate counsel did not cite Nance, appellate counsel clearly raised the Cyco issue. Pfau’s trial counsel raised and argued Nance before the trial court. The trial court expressly limited the State’s examination of Rice to forbid any reference to gangs and to keep the examination brief. The Iowa Supreme Court had all of this information before it when it independently reviewed the record. It is reasonable to believe the Iowa Supreme Court was fully aware of the gang issue as it related to the Cyco evidence, knew about its own decision in Nance, and conc ir.2001) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION We affirm the district

A: holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
B: holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
C: holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless
D: holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate
C.