Ricardo Martinez appeals from the sentence the District Court 1 imposed in accordance with the terms of his plea agreement, which also included an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave 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), challenging the reasonableness of Martinez’s sentence. Martinez has filed a pro se brief raising ineffective-assistance claims and suggesting that the District Court committed sentencing errors.

We decline to consider Martinez’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings). As to the remaining issues, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.