Kristopher Brock appeals his conviction and sentence following a jury trial for possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). He argues that 1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object at trial to testimony regarding his criminal history, 2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object at trial to the admissibility of a tape recording and to a witness’s trial testimony regarding the contents of that tape recording, and 3) the cumulative effect of his trial counsel’s errors deprived him of a fair trial.

“We have undertaken to resolve claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare cases where the record allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987); see Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). This is not one of those rare cases. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.