James Dawson directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a federal drug charge, and the district court 1 sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Dawson has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

After careful de novo review, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010), we will enforce the appeal waiver in Dawson’s plea agreement, because the arguments raised in this appeal fall within the scope of the waiver, Dawson’s testimony at the plea hearing shows that he entered into the waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and dismissing the appeal based on the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice, see United States v. Guzman, 707 F.3d 938, 941 (8th Cir. 2013).

Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. This appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.