record, including the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings, that Mr. Cordova-Cazares has not met his burden of showing ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the waiver or otherwise demonstrating that the waiver is invalid. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. Moreover, not only is Mr. Cordova-Cazares’ objection about trial counsel’s performance insufficient to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice in general, to the extent that his objection survives his plea agreement waiver at all, it would not be a basis for an appeal, but rather for a possible motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Delacruz-Soto, 414 F.3d 1158, 1168 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Plea Agreement at 5, para. 10
holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal holding that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective counsel in a collateral proceeding not on direct review holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal 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 a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review