Maria De La Luz Zapata De Pena argues on direct appeal that she received *601 ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing when counsel failed to secure a ruling on her motion for downward departure, depriving her of a possible ground for appeal. This court generally declines to review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). The court has “undertaken to resolve claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare cases where the record allowed [the court] to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Zapata De Pena’s claims are based on a failure to secure a ruling on a motion and no record has been developed below, her case is not one of those rare exceptions. See United States v. Valuck, 286 F.3d 221, 229 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1000, 123 S.Ct. 513, 154 L.Ed.2d 394 (2002); United States v. Gordon, 346 F.3d 135, 136-37 (5th Cir. 2003). Any ineffective assistance claim she may wish to bring may be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.