Shelton E. Lewis directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to extortionate communications and money laundering. 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), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Lewis has submitted a pro se brief in which he argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence, because the Guidelines’ enhancements accounted for the seriousness of the offense, and the court did not adequately discuss the section 3553(a) factors. We conclude that Lewis’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claims. 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 nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

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