MEMORANDUM **

Dario Flores-Cuamatzi appeals his guilty plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Flores-Cuamatzi contends his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because his counsel was ineffective for failing *625to advise him of a possible defense under United States v. Pacheco-Medina, 212 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2000). We disagree with the government’s assertion that Flores-Cuamatzi waived his appeal rights in the plea agreement. See United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We doubt that a plea agreement could waive a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s erroneously unprofessional inducement of the defendant to plead guilty or accept a particular plea bargain.”).

Nevertheless, we decline to review Flores-Cuamatzi’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Hanoum, 33 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 1994) (observing that an ineffective assistance claim is more properly raised by collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because such claims cannot be advanced without development of facts outside the record).

Flores-Cuamatzi has not set forth any other argument to support his claim that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.