MEMORANDUM *

Colin Nathanson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 324-month sentence for mail fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d), and we affirm.

*616 Nathanson has not shown that counsel s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Appellate counsel are not required to raise every nonfrivolous claim in a merits brief, and “ ‘[generally, only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome.’ ” Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) (quoting Gray v. Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir. 1986)). It was not clear that a due process claim based on Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983), would have been stronger than the claims Na-thanson’s counsel actually raised.

AFFIRMED.