DECISION AND ORDERI. Introduction Proceeding pro se, Timothy Luke (“Luke” or “Movant”) has filed a Motion to Vacate the Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (“§2255 Motion”), alleging that he is being detained in the custody of respondent, the United States of America (“the Government”), pursuant to an unconstitutionally imposed sentence. For the reasons discussed below, Long’s §2255 Motion is denied.II. Factual Background and Procedural HistoryOn June 10, 2014, Luke appeared before Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr., U.S.D.J., waived indictment, and, pursuant to a written plea agreement, pled guilty to Count 1 of an Information charging a violation of 21 U.S.C. §846 (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine), and to Count 2 charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A) (possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime). The plea agreement stated that under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”), Petitioner’s sentencing range for Count 1 would be a term of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment; for Count 2, would be a term of not less than five’ imprisonment to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence; and in the aggregate, would be 211 to 248 months’ imprisonment. The plea agreement also included provision pursuant to which Luke specifically waived the right to appeal or collaterally attack an aggregate sentence of 248 months or less. Ultimately, Judge Geraci imposed a sentence an aggregate sentence of 190 months’ imprisonment.Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 30, 2015, appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that there were no nonfrivolous issues to be argued on appeal. Appellate counsel also filed a motion to be relieved from representing Luke. Luke filed a pro se response to the Anders brief on December 1, 2015, claiming that the Court erred in accepting his plea without determining that a factual basis existed to support the charges Court failed to make a proper assessment of his relevant conduct. On March 1, 2016, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, for affirmance of the judgment of conviction. On June 3, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an order granting the Government’s motion to dismiss with respect to Luke’s appeal of his sentence, and granting the motion for summary affirmance with respect to the appeal of his conviction, special assessment, and forfeiture.Luke commenced the instant §2255 proceeding on September 25, 2017, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective. The Government filed a response. Luke did not file a reply.The §2255 proceeding was transferred to the undersigned on October 2, 2018. For the reasons discussed below, relief under §2255 is denied.III. Standard Under §2255“A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. §2255(a). A court may dismiss a §2255 motion without a hearing if the motion and the record “conclusively show[,]” id., that the movant is not entitled to relief. E.g., Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79, 85-86 (2d Cir. 2001).IV. DiscussionThe Government argues that, under the law of the case doctrine, Luke has waived his right to assert his present claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because they were impliedly adjudicated by the Second Circuit in his direct appeal of his conviction. The Government also contends that Luke’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims are barred from review under §2255 due to the waiver of his appellate and collateral review rights in his plea agreement. Alternatively, the Government argues that the claims are substantively without merit. As discussed below, the Court finds that it is foreclosed from reviewing Lukes’s claims due to the valid collateral rights waiver in his plea agreement. Therefore, the Court need not address the Government’s other arguments in favor of dismissal of the §2255 Motion.In the plea agreement, Luke knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to collaterally attack any sentence between 211 and 248 months or less. See Government’s Memorandum of Law (“Gov’t MOL”) (Docket No. 30) at (citing Exhibit (“Gov’t Ex.”) 1 (Docket No. 30-1), Plea Agreement,
