
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Astolfo ROMERO, Appellant.
    No. 07-2700.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 1, 2008.
    Filed: July 7, 2008.
    Robyn L. McKee, James J. Kelleher, Asst. U.S. Attys., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
    Jason Coatney, Law Office of Jason Coatney, Springfield, MO, for appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Astolfo Romero appeals the 24-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to four counts of distributing a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Romero’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of the sentence.

Romero pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which he waived any right to appeal his sentence unless it exceeded the statutory maximum or was an illegal sentence in a way that involved more than misapplication of the Guidelines or unreasonableness. We now enforce the appeal waiver because the record establishes Romero knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waiver; the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result from enforcing it. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal beyond the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we affirm Romero’s sentence, dismiss the appeal, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
     