Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Maynez directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to smuggle bulk cash and conspiring to import cocaine. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief *262 under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. We conclude that Rodriguez-Maynez’s appeal waiver' should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find-no nonfrivo-lous issues for appeal. We note, however, that the judgment incorrectly cites 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(3), and we order .that the judgment be corrected to substitute section 960(b)(3) for section 960(b)(1)(3). See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may modify any judgment brought before it for review).

According, we dismiss the appeal, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Rodriguez-Maynez’s motion for new counsel as moot.