the letter clearly indicated, he had “waived [his] appellate rights.” App. at 48. Despite his waiver of his appellate rights, Mr. Mowery filed a timely notice of appeal, which he subsequently withdrew. This § 2255 petition followed, in which Mr. Mowery argued that Mr. Baiamonte had provided ineffective assistance of counsel by (1) advising Mr. Mowery to reject the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea offer in which the government would agree to a sentence of 15 years and (2) by failing to argue for a concurrent sentence or make any argument whatsoever as to sentencing in the instant case. The government conceded that there was no procedural impediment to Mr. Mowery’s claim of ineffectiveness in a § 2255 petition. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003) (<HOLDING>). The district court adopted the magistrate
holding that because ohio law required ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claims be raised in an application to reopen the direct appeal of the criminal case such claims were part of the direct appeal entitling defendant to the assistance of counsel holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding holding ineffectivetrialassistance claim may be brought in 28 usc  2255 proceeding regardless of whether claim could have been raised on direct appeal holding that the fact that an ineffectiveness claim is raised and adjudicated on direct appeal will not procedurally bar an ineffectiveness claim in a proceeding under 28 usc  2255 where new reasons are advanced in support of that claim holding that an ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under  2255 whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal