United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-3481 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kyle G. Gibler, also known as Kyle Gibler lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: July 3, 2024 Filed: July 9, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Kyle Gibler appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense pursuant to a written plea agreement containing The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (stating that this court reviews de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating that an 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 Gibler is attempting to raise claims that counsel was ineffective, we decline to consider such claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez- Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (establishing that ineffective- assistance claims are usually best raised in collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, grant counsel leave to withdraw, and deny Gibler’s motions for appointment of new counsel. ______________________________

-2-