Charles Taylor, appointed counsel for Daniel Zirk in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsels assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsels motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Zirks convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Zirks pro se motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.
We recognize that Zirks response to counsels motion to withdraw contains allegations that counsel provided ineffective assistance. Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are best presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion rather than on direct appeal, we decline to consider these claims at this time, see Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–05, 508, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003), though Zirk is free to raise these allegations on collateral review in a § 2255 motion.
PER CURIAM: