Angela Gonzalez-Capetillo appeals her jury conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. She argues that her defense counsel had an actual conflict of interest because he previously represented Amada Quintanilla Moralez, one of the unindicted coconspirators in this *775 case. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot generally be resolved on direct appeal unless they have first been raised in the district court. United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the issue whether defense counsel had an actual conflict of interest was not raised in the district court, the record is not sufficiently developed and this court cannot fairly evaluate the merits of the ineffectiveness claim at this time. See United States v. Kizzee, 150 F.3d 497, 503 (5th Cir. 1998).

Gonzalez-Capetillo argues that the Government was required to, but did not, prove that she knew of the drug type and quantity involved in the instant offense. She concedes that the argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2241, 155 L.Ed.2d 1126 (2003), but states that she is raising it to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. In Gamez-Gonzalez, this court held that the Government does not need to prove knowledge of the drug type or quantity. Id. at 699-700. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of a prior panel in the absence of an en banc reconsideration or a superseding Supreme Court decision. United States v. Crouch, 51 F.3d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.