a defendant from raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a post-conviction motion. See United States v. Henderson, 72 F.3d 463, 465 (5th Cir.1995) (“dismissal of an appeal based on a waiver in the plea agreement is inappropriate where the defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea incorporates a claim that the plea agreement generally and the defendant’s waiver of appeal specifically, were tainted by ineffective assistance of counsel”); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979, 113 S.Ct. 2980, 125 L.Ed.2d 677 (1993) (stating waiver does not “categorically” foreclose defendant’s right to bring motion under section 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel); see also United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175, 178 (4th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). In his section 2255 motion, DeRoo argued that
holding waiver did not preclude rule 32d motion challenging validity of waiver due to ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the validity of a collateral waiver is a threshold issue 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 recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding waiver ineffective but finding no need to remand and affirming denial of section 2255 motion when defendant did not specify any basis for claim of ineffective assistance