
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael KING, also known as Science, Timothy Rucker, also known as Tuquan, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 99-1277, 99-1428.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 9, 2001.
    B. Alan Seidler, Nyack, NY, for appellant King.
    Frank Handelman, New York, NY, for appellant Rucker.
    Kelly A. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, New York City, NY; Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, for appellee.
    Present WALKER, Chief Circuit Judge, POOLER, Circuit Judge, and HADEN, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       Charles H. Haden II, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
    
   The appellants appeal their respective judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Glasser, Judge). The basic factual background for these appeals is contained in a published opinion filed by the court today with respect to co-appellant Randy Hutchinson.

Counsel for appellant Timothy Rucker moves to be relieved of his appointment and has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The government correspondingly moves for summary affirmance of Rucker’s conviction and sentence. We grant both motions, finding no nonfrivolous basis for appeal.

Appellant Michael King asserts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Having considered the parties’ arguments, we deem the record insufficient to conclusively resolve the claim. Accordingly, we affirm King’s conviction without prejudice to his bringing a later motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Accordingly, with respect to appellant Michael King, we AFFIRM without prejudice to his bringing a later motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, assuming his compliance at that time with the applicable procedural and substantive requirements governing such motions. With respect to appellant Timothy Rucker, the appeal is DISMISSED.  