
    UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Clifton HUDSON Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-1158
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 5, 2017
    Filed: October 25, 2017
    William W. Mickle, II, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Clifton Hudson, Pro Se
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Clifton Hudson challenges the. sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to a robbery charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging his career-offender designation and arguing that the sentence was unreasonable.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Hudson entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under 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 grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal. 
      
      . The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
     