The opinion of the court was delivered by: John G. Koeltl, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The petitioner, Guy Brizard, appearing pro se, moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. On October 1, 2009, the petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to three counts of an indictment charging conspiracy, identity theft, and aggravated identity theft. On May 14, 2010, this Court sentenced the petitioner principally to an aggregate sentence of 70 months imprisonment, which was within the Stipulated Guideline Range in the Plea Agreement. Because the present petition is barred by the waiver of collateral review in the Plea Agreement and is without merit in any event, the petition is denied.
On November 21, 2008, a Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment charging the petitioner with the following crimes: first, conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to commit identity theft and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(7), 1028A, and 1343; second, identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7); and, third, aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
Prior to pleading guilty, the petitioner entered into a Plea Agreement with the Government. The Plea Agreement stipulated to a base offense level of 21 or 23, depending on whether this Court found that the defendant had obstructed justice and should therefore be subject to a two-level enhancement under § 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines.*fn1 (Plea Agr. at 4.) Given the defendant's criminal history category of one, the parties stipulated that the Stipulated Guideline Range was either 61 to 70 months imprisonment or 70 to 81 months imprisonment depending on whether the Court found that the defendant had obstructed justice. (Plea Agr. at 4.) The Plea Agreement also provided that "the defendant will not file a direct appeal, nor litigate under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 and/or Section 2241, any sentence within or below the Stipulated Guideline Ranges . . . ." (Plea Agr. at 5.)
The Court accepted the petitioner's guilty plea on October 1, 2009. During a thorough plea colloquy, the petitioner affirmed that he fully understood the elements and penalties of each offense charged, as well as the constitutional and trial rights he would give up by entering a guilty plea. (Plea Tr. 6-21.) The petitioner affirmed that he fully understood the Plea Agreement before signing it, and that everything he understood about his plea and sentence was contained in the agreement. (Plea Tr. 24.) The petitioner further affirmed his full understanding of the provision in the Plea Agreement waiving his right to appeal or collaterally challenge a sentence within the Stipulated Guidelines Ranges. (Plea Tr. 25-26.) Indeed, the petitioner affirmed that he understood that if the Court sentenced him to a sentence of 81 months imprisonment or less, he had given up his right to appeal or otherwise challenge any such sentence in any proceeding, including any habeas corpus proceeding. (Plea Tr. 26.) The petitioner also affirmed that he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty and that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and of his own free will. (Plea Tr. 31.) He affirmed that no one had offered him any inducements or threatened him or forced him to plead guilty or to enter into the Plea Agreement. (Plea Tr. 24-25.) The petitioner also affirmed that he was satisfied with his attorney. (Plea Tr. 5.)
The Court held a sentencing hearing on May 14, 2010. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court applied the obstruction of justice enhancement, resulting in a Sentencing Guideline Range of 70-81 months imprisonment. (Sent'g Tr. 15, 28.)*fn2 The Court imposed a sentence consisting of 46 months each for Counts One and Two, to run concurrently, and a sentence of 24 months for Count Three, to run consecutively to Counts One and Two, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 70 months imprisonment. (Sent'g Tr. 32.) The sentence imposed was plainly within the Stipulated Guideline Range. (See Plea Agr. at 4.)
The petitioner filed a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit arguing that the consecutive sentence imposed for Count Three violated the petitioner's protection from double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that his trial counsel's failure to raise this issue at sentencing violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. On June 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Brizard, 424 F. App'x 66 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order). The Court of Appeals found that because none of the exceptions to enforcement of an appellate waiver in a plea agreement applied, and because the imposed sentence was within the Stipulated Guideline Range, the appellate waiver provision was enforceable, and effectively barred the appeal. Id. at 67.
By petition dated August 19, 2011, the petitioner moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The petitioner argues that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated because:
1) trial counsel provided misinformation that led the petitioner to enter an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea; 2) trial and appellate counsel failed to argue that an obstruction of justice enhancement was improper under the Sentencing Guidelines; 3) trial counsel failed to object to the Indictment being duplicative; 4) trial counsel failed to argue that the petitioner's pre-trial confinement should warrant a reduction in his sentence; and 5) trial counsel failed to disclose to the court fraud charges, unrelated to the current case, brought against one of the Government agents involved in the investigation. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these issues.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has repeatedly held that waivers of the right to appeal contained in plea agreements are valid and enforceable. See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 523 F.3d 104, 106 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Morgan, 406 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2005); Garcia--Santos v. United States, 273 F.3d 506, 509 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals has also held that knowing and voluntary waivers of the right to litigate pursuant to § 2255 are valid and enforceable. See Frederick v. Warden, Lewisburg Corr. Facility, 308 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2002) ("There is no general bar to a waiver of collateral attack rights in a plea agreement.") (citation omitted); Garcia--Santos, 273 F.3d at 509.
The circumstances under which the Court of Appeals has declined to enforce waivers of the right to appeal are very limited. As the Court of Appeals noted in Gomez--Perez, the exceptions include situations:
[W]hen the waiver was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and competently, when the sentence was imposed based on constitutionally impermissible factors, such as ethnic, racial or other prohibited biases, when the government breached the plea agreement, or when the sentencing court failed to enunciate any rationale for the defendant's sentence . . . . 215 F.3d at 319 (internal citations omitted) (collecting cases).
To the extent that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel challenges the process by which the Plea Agreement was entered into, it can survive the waiver provision in a Plea Agreement. Parisi v. United States, 529 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 2008). However, "[t]o raise a claim despite a guilty plea or appeal waiver, the petitioner must show that the plea agreement was not knowing and voluntary, because the advice he received from counsel was not within acceptable standards." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court of Appeals explained that, "[a]n ineffective assistance of counsel claim survives the guilty plea or the appeal waiver only where the claim concerns the advice [the defendant] received from ...