Juan Avalos-Lopez appeals his conviction upon the district court’s 1 acceptance of his plea of guilty to aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Edüd 493 (1967), arguing that the factual basis supporting the guilty plea was insufficient.

Avalos-Lopez pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and his sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that Avalos-Lopez understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver; the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing it. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal beyond the scope of the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel advising Avalos-Lopez of his right to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.