United States v. Dixon, 479 F.3d 431, 436 (6th Cir.2007). The burden is on the defendant “to demonstrate that proper grounds exist for the granting of such a motion.” Id. B. Analysis Taylor contends that his plea was not knowing and intelligent because Attorney Barney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that Barney failed to investigate the prosecution’s case by neglecting to move for (1) discovery, (2) the identity of the confidential informant, (3) dismissal based on a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, and (4) suppression of Taylor’s confession. As a general rule, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be brought in a post-conviction proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not on direct appeal. United States v. Aguwa, 123 F.3d 418, 423 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). “[I]neffec-tive-assistance
holding that the record on direct appeal was insufficiently developed to permit the appellate court to assess the merits of the claim holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue recognizing that appellate court is in same position as trial court to assess evidence when all of the proof is contained in the record by deposition holding that delinquent minor could not challenge the conditions of his confinement on direct appeal from his commitment because the record would not be sufficiently developed on this issue to permit review