ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

The government moves to enforce the plea agreement it entered into with Jose Calderon. Mr. Calderon admits that he “can set forth no legal grounds to oppose the motion to enforce the plea agreement.” Response to Mot. to Enforce Plea Agreement at 4. He therefore concedes the motion. After independently applying the three-pronged analysis set forth in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004), we conclude that the government’s motion to enforce should be granted.

Mr. Calderon asks that if the motion to enforce is granted he be allowed to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating the plea in an appropriate proceeding. Typically, such claims should be brought in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Delacruz-Soto, 414 F.3d 1158, 1168 (10th Cir. 2005). Although, in his plea agreement, Mr. Calderon waived the right to challenge his sentence in a § 2255 proceeding, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning the negotiation of a plea agreement cannot be barred by the agreement’s appeal waiver provision. See United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, our dismissal of this appeal is *767 without prejudice to Mr. Calderon’s pursuing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a § 2255 proceeding.

The government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.