Tina Esquivel directly appeals after she was sentenced in the district court 1 upon her guilty plea to a drug charge. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he seeks to withdraw. In a pro se brief, Esquivel argues that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct.

Esquivel entered her guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a waiver of all appeal rights except with respect to jurisdictional and sentencing issues. Because we perceive no nonfrivo-lous jurisdictional or sentencing issues in this case after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and because we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, we will enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal. See United States v. McIntosh, 492 F.3d 956, 960 (8th Cir. 2007) (appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary when it was included in plea agreement, court questioned defendant about his understanding of waiver, and defendant did not argue on appeal that waiver was unknowing or involuntary); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver is enforceable where appeal falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing waiver); United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir. 1998) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and voluntary decision; examining personal characteristics of defendant and circumstances surrounding plea agreement when assessing knowledge and voluntariness of waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (in Anders case, enforcing appeal waiver by dismissing appeal).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. 2