Dennis Gene Grippando pled guilty to conspiring to distribute a mixture with a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(c), and 846; and to conspiring to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(l)(A)(i) and (h). He directly appeals the within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court. 1 His *200 counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal.

Grippando’s plea agreement contains an appeal waiver that prevents consideration of this claim and should be enforced. 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). An independent review of the record reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

The appeal is dismissed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.