Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Michael Brewer appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 210-month sentence for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Brewer’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. Brewer has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed. With the exception of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Brewer waived his right to appeal his conviction and 210-month sentence. We decline to review Brewer’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). The waiver of the right to appeal the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue (B) holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel (C) holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal (D) holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record (E) holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal only in the unusual cases where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant his sixth amendment right to counsel
Output (English): holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record