* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-10262

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUEL RAMIREZ; DOMIRO DELGADILLO,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

(4:97-CR-46-2-Y)

_________________________________________________________________

January 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIUM: *

Manuel Rami rez and Domiro Delgadillo were convicted of

conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and

attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Both

appeal arguing that they were denied effective assist ance of

counsel and that the district court erred in admitting testimony

prejudicial to the defendants. They both also argue that the

district court was unfair in its treatment of defense counsel. In

addition, Delgadillo contends that there was insufficient evidence2

to support his conviction. We decline to review the claim

regarding ineffective counsel, as that issue has not been addressed

in the district court and the record is not adequately developed to

support a ruling on appeal. Because we find the evidence

sufficien t to support these convictions and the district court’s

evidentiary rulings and conduct with respect to counsel to have

been within the court’s discretion, we affirm the district court’s

judgment.

Ramirez and Delgadillo argue that the ineffective assistance

of their counsel resulted in their convictions. Under U nited

States v. Morgan

, 117 F.3d 849, 862 (5th Cir. 1997), if the

defendants do not raise the issue of ineffective assistance of

counsel in the district court, the claim cannot be resolved on

direct appeal unless the record allows a fair evaluation of the

merits of the claim. In this case, the merits of the appellants’

allegations have not been addressed below and there is therefore no

record on appeal with which we can resolve this issue. Ramirez and

Delgadillo argue on appeal that their counsels’ ineffectiveness was

so blatant that there are no factual issues that could be developed

in a lower court proceeding. After reviewing the record in this

case, we cannot agree. A key issue in determining whether

counsel’s assistance was effective is understandi n g the trial

strategy of the lawyers who presented the case. We do not believe

that such a determination can be made in this case without

providing a forum for the testimony of the lawyers who actually

tried the case. We note, however, that our decision here does not3

prejudice Ramirez and Delgadillo’s rights to raise this issue in a

habeas corpus proceeding.

In addition, Delgadillo argues that the evidence did not

support his convictions. The standard of review for a challenge of

the sufficiency of the evidence is whether a rational fact-finder,

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government,

could have found it established the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt. U nited States v. Jaras

, 8 6 F.3d 383,

386-87 (5th Cir. 1996).

We conclude that the jury had before it sufficient evidence to

convict Delgadillo. There was testimony that Delgadillo attended

a meeting to arrange the purchase of cocaine from a government

informer; that he agreed to front some of the money to purchase the

cocaine; that he stood watch while his codefendant Ramirez tested

the quality of th e cocaine; that he was present at the arranged

meeting to purchase t he cocaine; and that, while the transaction

was taking place, he accurately described the means of payment for

the cocaine to an undercover agent. Although the jury could have

questioned the credibility of this evid ence, if believed, it is

sufficient to support Delgadillo’s conviction.

Ramirez and Delgadillo also argue that the district court

committed a number of procedural errors that prejudiced their case.

They contend that the district court erred by admitting into

evidence testimony that third parties associated with them engaged

in drug-related activities. They also argue that, when the

distri ct court instructed the jury to disregard a witness’s4

comment, the district court erred by not granting a motion for a

mistrial. Finally, they argue that the district court improperly

chastised defense counsel within the presence of the jury.

After a careful review of the record and the arguments in the

briefs, we find no eviden ce that the district court erred. The

evidence that was admitted was relevant. The district court was

not compelled to grant a mistrial where, in its judgment an

instruction to the jury to disregard testimony sufficed. Finally,

the comments made by the district court to defense counsel in the

presence of the jury did not prejudice the outcome of the trial.

We therefore AFFIRM the district court i n this case without

prejudice to Ramirez and Delgadi llo’s ineffective assistance of

counsel claims.

A F F I R M E D.