Francisco Velasquez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and the district court 1 sentenced him to 198 months’ imprisonment. He contends, first of all, without elaboration, that his sentence is unconstitutional and “asks that the entire record be reviewed” to determine if any error occurred in “the conviction and sentencing process.” Treating this part of Mr. Velasquez’s brief as an Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we have undertaken an independent review pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have discovered no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Mr. Velasquez also maintains, again without elaboration, that he was denied his Sixth-Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in the district court, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). But we do not entertain such claims on direct appeal of a conviction unless a record supporting those claims has been made in the district court or “the result would otherwise be a plain miscarriage of justice.” See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2002). Neither exception applies in this case.

Affirmed.