Regalado

MEMORANDUM ***

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Our remand of Regalado’s original appeal did not contemplate that the district court would resolve his ineffective assistance claims. The remand order stated that Regalado’s original appeal was remanded “for the purpose of permitting [the district court] to conduct an inquiry into the bases for appellant’s putative request to relieve counsel.” The district court properly conducted that inquiry, appointed new counsel, and resentenced Regalado.

Nor should the district court have reviewed his ineffective assistance claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . See United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997). The customary procedure for challenging the effectiveness of defense counsel in a federal criminal trial is by collateral attack on the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . United States v. Birges, 723 F.2d 666, 670 (9th Cir.1984). Here, no exception to this general rule applies. The record is not sufficiently developed, and Regalado’s counsel was not so inadequate as to obviously deny Regalado his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 290 (9th Cir.1992). We therefore decline to consider…