assistance claims fall within the scope of the waiver, (2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to collateral review, and (3) enforcement of the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc); United States v. Parker, 720 F.3d 781, 787 (10th Cir.2013). B. The Scope of the Waiver The waiver covers the ineffective-assistance claims regarding the sentencing and the failure to file an appeal. See United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1188 (10th Cir.2001) (because the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance at sentencing did not relate to the validity of the plea or the waiver, the right to challenge the sentence was waived); United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). The sentence fell below the guideline range,
holding that defendants failure to appeal the voluntariness of a plea constitutes waiver of the issue on subsequent appeal holding that the validity of a collateral waiver is a threshold issue holding that a plea agreement with a waiver of direct appeal rights does not include a waiver of collateral remedies because the government could have included a waiver of collateral rights in the plea agreement and chose not to do so holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver