
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Christopher HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-51015
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 8, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Adrian Chavez, The Chavez Law Firm, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Paul Christopher Hicks appeals his 63-month sentence following his guilty plea conviction of being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hicks argues that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective during sentencing. The Government argues that the claim should await collateral review or, alternatively, that it is without merit.

This court generally will not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal except in those “rare cases where the record allowed [this court] to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.1987). We conclude that this is not one of those cases. Without prejudice to Hicks’ right to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     