United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). When such claims are pursued on direct appeal, they “are presumptively dismissible, and virtually all will be dismissed.” Id. By encouraging collateral proceedings, this rule allows the district court to develop the factual record and to reach an initial decision on the merits of the claim. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 505-06, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). It also ensures that we have an adequate appellate record upon which to base our decision. Galloway, 56 F.3d at 1240. We have, of course, permitted exceptions to this general rule, but only where the factual record on ineffectiveness is fully developed. See, e.g., United States v. Hamilton, 510 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Carr, 80 F.3d 413, 416 n. 3
holding that the fact that an ineffectiveness claim is raised and adjudicated on direct appeal will not procedurally bar an ineffectiveness claim in a proceeding under 28 usc  2255 where new reasons are advanced in support of that claim holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo holding than an ineffectiveness claim was reviewable on direct appeal where the district court held a lengthy hearing on the matter and a factual record enabling appellate review already existfed holding that the record on direct appeal was insufficiently developed to permit the appellate court to assess the merits of the claim holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue