SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Roger Robare appeals a judgment of conviction entered *39 March 24, 2011. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the factual history and proceedings below.

Briefly, Robare was indicted on August 22, 2007, in a two-count indictment charging him with the unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm (sawed-off shotgun with no serial number), in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a)(2), 5861(c), and 5871, and being a felon in possession of that same shotgun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

On February 14, 2008, the grand jury issued a superseding indictment charging Robare with four offenses: (1) possession of a sawed off shotgun (serial number 58885), in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a)(2), 5861(c), and 5871; (2) possession of an unregistered shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871; (3) being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and (4) being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

On November 1, 2008, the Government moved to dismiss Count Three, which motion was granted. [A 26.] On November 10, 2008, the case went to trial and a jury, on November 14, 2008, returned a verdict of guilty on the remaining three counts.

Extensive post-trial motions followed, including a motion to vacate the conviction. On January 3, 2011, the District Court granted Robare’s motion to vacate the conviction on Count Two, and denied the remainder of the post-trial relief. See Memorandum, Decision and Order, United States v. Robare, No. 07-cr-00373 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2011), ECF No. 149.

On March 24, 2011, judgment was entered based upon the jury verdict of November 14, 2008. On March 30, 2011, Robare was sentenced, principally to a period of incarceration of 96 months on each of the two remaining counts, to run concurrently. On April 5, 2011, Robare filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, Robare raises substantially the same arguments that the District Court considered and rejected in its Order of January 3, 2011. For the reasons stated in that comprehensive Order, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. See Memorandum, Decision and Order, United States v . Robare, No. 07-cr-00373 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2011), ECF No. 149. As to Robare’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we dismiss without prejudice to their being raised in a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Robare’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the March 24, 2011 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.