United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2979 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kenton Burton, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 20-2983 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kenton Burton, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: May 6, 2021 Filed: May 11, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Kenton Burton appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed at his consolidated sentencing after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and his supervised release was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issues counsel raises challenging the brandishing enhancement and the substantive reasonableness of the bank robbery sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice).

To the extent Burton challenges the calculation of his criminal history, we conclude that the district court’s calculation was correct. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (construction and application of Guidelines are reviewed de novo). To the extent he challenges the reasonableness of his supervised release revocation sentence, we conclude it was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive

1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2- reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of- discretion standard).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in part based on the appeal waiver, otherwise affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-3-