Christopher Lindsey directly appeals after he pled guilty to fraud and identity-theft offenses, and the district court 1 sentenced him within his calculated Guidelines range to 180 months in prison. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging that Lindsey’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, and arguing that Lindsey’s sentence is unreasonable. Counsel has also moved to withdraw. Lindsey has filed a pro se submission arguing that the appeal waiver is invalid because the district court advised him about his appeal rights.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, and after careful de novo review, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010), we further conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable as to the issue raised by counsel, see United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997). In addition, an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.