for relief under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(c) or to timely appeal the judgment. See Fed. R.App. 4(b). Nevertheless, on April 19, 2000, Burress sent a letter to the district court alleging that his outstanding restitution obligation was incorrect because the victim had examination, see United States v. Barany, 884 F.2d 1255, 1259 (9th Cir.1989). This challenge fails. Because Burress did not timely appeal the judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his appeal insofar as it attacks the legality of the district court’s judgment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o); Fed. R.Crim.P. 4(b). Burress next raises several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We decline to address these contentions because the record is not sufficiently developed. See United States v. Pope, 841 F.2d 954, 958 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Burress contends that the district
holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved by the facts in the record and must be pursued in an action for habeas corpus 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 claim is better pursued on collateral attack because it permits the defendant to develop a record as to what counsel did why it was done and what if any prejudice resulted