Gilberto Madriles-Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Madriles-Guzman argues that his retained attorney performed ineffectively at trial and at sentencing and that the district court plainly erred during voir dire by commenting on the quantity of drugs involved in the offense.

A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-04, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). We decline to address the claims of ineffective counsel raised in this case because there has been no opportunity to develop the record as to the merits of the claims. See United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 929, 126 S.Ct. 207, 163 L.Ed.2d 278 (2005). The district court’s comments during voir dire were not plainly erroneous. See United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 572-73 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.