Does counsel's failure to make a motion to exclude the evidence constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment?

Here, because there has been no showing of either error or fundamental unfairness with respect to admission of the evidence, counsel's failure to seek to exclude the evidence was not objectively unreasonable, and could not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Cf. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 27 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to make a motion which would not have been successful or was otherwise futile does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel and does not result in prejudice). The state court also considered the due process claim to be cognizable on appeal; thus, the record does not reflect that counsel's conduct or omissions resulted in any injury or negative effect.