UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                  No. 98-4829
VERA VERONICA ELLIOTT, a/k/a B.B.,
a/k/a Sealed Deft. 5,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CR-98-37)

Submitted: September 30, 1999

Decided: October 19, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David H. Rogers, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice
McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, John Howarth Bennett, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Vera Veronica Elliott appeals her conviction and sentence for con-
spiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute crack
cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. 846 (West Supp. 1999). Elliott's only claim on appeal is
that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Claims of ineffec-
tive assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct
appeal. See United States v. King, 

, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
Rather, such a claim must be brought in a motion under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 1999), to allow for adequate development of the
record. See United States v. Hoyle, 

, 418 (4th Cir. 1994).
A claim may be brought, however, when the record conclusively
establishes ineffective assistance. See King, 119 F.3d at 295. The
review of the record in this appeal does not conclusively establish
ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm Elliot's conviction and
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2