Reginald Ford directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to a drug offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. 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 Ford’s sentence is unreasonable and that Ford received ineffective assistance of counsel. Ford has filed a supplemental brief, arguing that the district court misapplied the career-offender provisions of the Guidelines, in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). First, we decline to reach the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly developed). Second, as to the remaining arguments, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Finally, 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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.