
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy Glenn WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant,
    No. 15-40948
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 25, 2016.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Timothy Glenn Williams, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Timothy Glenn Williams has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Williams has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. Although counsel addresses the validity of Williams’s appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n. 3 (5th Cir.2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.
     