1

The Honorable David R. Hansen stepped down as Chief Judge of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on March 31,

2003. He has been succeeded by the Honorable James B. Loken.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 02-2022

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Larry D. Hughes,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Western District of Missouri.

________________

Submitted: February 11, 2003

 Filed: June 6, 2003

________________

Before HANSEN,1

 Chief Judge, LOKEN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

A jury found Larry D. Hughes guilty of being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defense counsel did not object to the

presentence report (PSR), which recommended that Hughes's offense level be reduced

by two levels for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
2 The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

2

Manual § 3E1.1(a) because he went to trial to assert and preserve issues that did not

relate to his factual guilt.

The district court2

 adopted the PSR, resulting in a Guidelines imprisonment

range of twenty-one to twenty-seven months, and sentenced Hughes to twenty-four

months in prison and three years of supervised release. In this direct appeal, Hughes

makes one argument: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an additional

one-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)(1)

because, when Hughes was interviewed shortly after police recovered two firearms

from his apartment, he admitted to police that he owned the guns and had traded

drugs for them. If Hughes had received an additional one-level reduction, his

Guidelines imprisonment range would have been eighteen to twenty-four months.

When claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are asserted on direct

appeal, we ordinarily defer them to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. "Except where a

miscarriage of justice would obviously result or the outcome would be inconsistent

with substantial justice, ineffective assistance of counsel issues are more

appropriately raised in collateral proceedings because they normally involve facts

outside the original record." United States v. Woods, 270 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir.

2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 948 (2002). We see no reason to deviate from our usual

rule in this case because Hughes "raised no claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

in the district court, the record is undeveloped in this regard, and justice does not

beckon us to consider his claim on direct review." Id. "We consequently reject the

claim without prejudice to his right to raise it in collateral proceedings," id., where

the district court can evaluate Hughes's police interview to determine if he "timely

provid[ed] complete information to the government" within the meaning of

§ 3E1.1(b)(1), trial counsel can be questioned to determine why he did not seek the
3

additional one-level reduction, and the district court can consider whether it would

have imposed the same twenty-four-month prison term under either Guidelines range.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.