v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (upholding waiver of appeal rights when claim of ineffective assistance was based on counsel’s failure to appeal). In this case, however, DeRoo’s claim is not precluded by his waiver. The District Court should have addressed the substance of DeRoo’s motion and determined whether the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel made DeRoo’s waiver unknowing and involuntary. Ordinarily we would remand the matter to the District Court for hearing and ruling on the motion. There is no need to remand, however, because the record relating to DeRoo’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is sufficient to permit meaningful review on appeal. See United States v. Johnston, 220 F.3d 857, 860-61 (8th Cir.2000); cf. Jones, 167 F.3d at 1145-46 (<HOLDING>). III. A defendant “faces a heavy burden” to
recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that failure to file brief on appeal to bia constitutes ineffective assistance but affirming the denial of habeas because petitioner could not show prejudice holding waiver ineffective but finding no need to remand and affirming denial of section 2255 motion when defendant did not specify any basis for claim of ineffective assistance holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate