Jaime Guerrero-Robledo challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to an immigration offense, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asking the court to disregard the appeal waiver, and arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Counsel also seeks leave to withdraw.

Upon careful review, we cqnclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. 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, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.