to explain the Government’s plea offer adequately and for refusing to notify the district court of Bowens’s desire for new counsel. This Court has a “baseline aversion to resolving ineffectiveness claims on direct review.” United States v. Khedr, 343 F.3d 96, 99 (2d Cir.2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003) (expressing preference that an ineffective counsel claim be evaluated pursuant to a § 2255 motion, rather than on direct appeal). But this Court will review ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal when the record is fully developed and resolution is beyond doubt. See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 219 n. 13 (2d Cir.2005); see also Khedr, 343 F.3d at 100 (<HOLDING>). Here, the record is not sufficiently
holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal holding that this court should resolve an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal where their resolution is beyond any doubt or to do so would be in the interest of justice internal quotations omitted holding that no evidentiary hearing is necessary on an ineffective assistance claim where the evidence petitioner sought to introduce would not affect resolution of the issue holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal