FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

OCT 15 1999

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA MARSH,

Petitioner - Appellant,
vs.

PENNY LUCERO; ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Respondents - Appellees.	

No. 99-2097
(	D.C. No. CIV-97-595-BB/RLP)
(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

	

	Ms. Marsh seeks to appeal from the denial of her habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging her state conviction for cocaine trafficking.  After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge, whose findings and recommendations were adopted by the district court, dismissed the action with prejudice.  On appeal, Ms. Marsh contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her trial counsel failed to properly impeach the prosecution’s key witness, Edgar Millican.
	Our review of an ineffective assistance claim is de novo, however, factual findings made by the magistrate judge in the course of an evidentiary hearing on such a claim may be overturned only upon a showing of clear error.  See Romero v. Tansy, 46 F.3d 1024, 1028 (10th Cir. 1995).  In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Ms. Marsh “must prove that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense, depriving the petitioner of a fair trial with a reliable result.”  Boyd v. Ward, 179 F.3d 904, 913 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).  This burden requires proof  that counsel’s actions were “completely unreasonable, not merely wrong.” Boyd, 179 F.3d at 914.  
	Ms. Marsh relies upon two incidents to support her claim.  First, she claims that counsel failed to impeach a key prosecution witness about a reprimand received from a prosecutor for false testimony.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge found that the reprimand incident never occurred.  See R. doc. 32 at 4, ¶ 7  (“I do not find [this] version of events credible.”).  Plainly, whether the incident occurred was controverted; the factual finding cannot be clearly erroneous.
	Ms. Marsh also challenges counsel’s failure to impeach Mr. Millican about his driving record and his relationship with Dennis Marsh, Ms. Marsh’s 
ex-husband.  At the evidentiary hearing, counsel “testified that he had not considered [the witness’] driving record to be sufficiently important to warrant an investigation.”  Id. at ¶ 6.  Based upon the record, such a  determination was not “completely unreasonable.” 
	The findings of the magistrate judge were not clearly erroneous.  Because Ms. Marsh has failed to meet her burden under the Strickland test, we DENY her request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.	

						Entered for the Court

						Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
						Circuit Judge