filed a response indicating that Mr. McDonald agrees that the first two Hahn factors have been met, but he may want to contest whether he received effective assistance of counsel in negotiating the appeal waiver, which is one way a miscarriage of justice can result. See id. at 1327 (listing four situations where a miscarriage of justice may result, including “where ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiation of [an appeal] waiver renders the waiver invalid”). But as counsel recognizes, that argument generally should be raised in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than on direct appeal, since the district court has not had an opportunity to develop the factual record on the issue. See, e.g., United States v. Ibarra-Coronel, 517 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 & n. 13 (recognizing
holding that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective counsel in a collateral proceeding not on direct review holding that under oregon law a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in the initial habeas proceeding recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel usually must be raised in collateral proceeding holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal