Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): on direct appeal when the district court did not entertain the claim or develop a factual record. United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.2002). “If the record is sufficiently developed, however, [we] wdl consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal.” Id. We review such a claim de novo. Id. We wdl not consider Wdliams’s first claim on direct appeal. However, given our earlier holding that there was no constructive amendment of the indictment where the district court instructed the jury to determine whether and to what extent Williams possessed with intent to distribute crystal methamphetamine, we reject Wdliams’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for fading to object on this ground. See Lucas v. Wainwright, 604 F.2d 373, 375 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). In light of the foregoing, Wdliams’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where jury has been properly instructed counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to an instruction (B) holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed (C) holding that the prejudice prong of strickland was not met in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutors misstatement of law where the trial court properly instructed the jury (D) holding where defendant challenged jury instruction and also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his counsels failure to object to instruction because we find no error in the instructions defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must also be rejected (E) holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
Output (English): holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel