With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (per curiam). In response, Ms. Bon-illa-Holguin’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) (authorizing counsel to request permission to withdraw where counsel conscientiously examines case and determines that appeal would be wholly frivolous). Counsel states that the only arguable nonfrivolous issue presented in the record is ineffective assistance of trial counsel in negotiating the appeal waiver, but that argument should be raised in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than on direct appeal, since the district court has not had an opportunity to develop the factual record on the issue. See, e.g., United States v. Ibarra-Coronel, 517 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We gave Ms. Bonilla-Holguin an opportunity to

A: holding that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective counsel in a collateral proceeding not on direct review
B: recognizing claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel usually must be raised in collateral proceeding
C: holding that under oregon law a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in the initial habeas proceeding
D: holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal
B.