
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Henry VAN BUREN, aka Hendrik Van Vuuren, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-10237.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
    
    Decided Dec. 12, 2005.
    Robin R. Taylor, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Van Burén, Paris, TX, pro se. Joseph J. Wiseman, Esq., Joseph J. Wiseman, P.C., Davis, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Henry Van Burén appeals his conviction and 6-month sentence imposed for misprision of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. Van Buren’s attorney has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), on the ground that the appeal presents no arguable issues.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that Van Burén knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that the changes in sentencing law imposed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     