the appeal waiver. We grant the motion in part, and dismiss the appeal except to the extent Eades raises ineffective assistance claims outside the scope of the waiver. As to the claims outside the scope of the waiver, we affirm. We reject Eades’s contention that his waiver is voidable for inadequate or improper consideration. Eades received valuable consideration when the Government, in good faith, forbore its pursuit of the Armed Career Criminal sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 922(e), regardless of whether Eades might ultimately have prevailed on the issue. Moreover, the Government’s forbearance does not constitute illegal consideration because the Government merely agreed not to pursue the enhancement. Cf. United States v. Williams, 488 F.3d 1004, 1011 & n. 9 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we turn to the waiver itself. A waiver
holding that the government likely could not agree to a plea bargain which would directly circumvent a mandatory minimum holding that defendants may agree to departure from sentencing guidelines in plea bargain holding defendant did not prove an enforceable agreement only that there was some discussion of a plea bargain holding that when the defendant was misadvised when entering his guilty plea that he would not have to serve a mandatory parole term following his release from prison fundamental fairness required limiting the term of his sentence to that which comported with the plea bargain recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea