request with a statement that counsel has examined these issues and found them to be without merit. Specifically, Coleman asserts that: (1) the Government violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 201 (West 2000), by presenting the testimony of witnesses who were presumably testifying in the hopes of obtaining a sentence reduction; (2) the district court erred at sentencing in converting the value of a half of a kilogram of cocaine powder into crack; and (3) his attorney provided ineffective assistance. Our review of these issues leads us to agree with counsel’s determination on issues (1) and (2). As to issue (3), a direct appeal is not the proper forum in this instance, because ineffective assistance is not clear on the face of the record. United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In light of the above determinations, we
holding that petitioner did not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal 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 to the extent defendants claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel it is not cognizable on direct appeal and rule 2915 is the exclusive procedure by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be advanced holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel