Robert Dennis Thompson appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (1) by stipulating to the elements of the charged offense, (2) by not investigating and raising any pre-trial issues, and (3) by not investigating, raising, or filing a *196 motion for new trial and/or a motion to arrest the judgment.

“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. Without prejudice to Thompson’s right to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.