
    UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bernard GLEGHORN Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-4569
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 10, 2018
    Filed: March 2, 2018
    
      Allison Hart Behrens, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Timothy Bird, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Charles Joseph Banks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant
    Bernard Gleghorn, Pro Se
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Bernard Gleghorn pleaded guilty in the district court to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Gleghorn appeals his within-Guidelines sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment as substantively unreasonable. His plea agreement contained an appeal waiver. See Guilty Plea Agreement at 7, United States v. Gleghorn, No. 4:15-cr-00532-CDP (E.D Mo. Jul. 6, 2016),,ECF No. 38 (“[T]he Defendant hereby waives all rights to appeal all sentencing issues other than Criminal History.”).

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and should be enforced. Our review of the record shows that Gleghorn 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). Furthermore, Gleg-hom’s argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable falls within the scope of the waiver, and no miscarriage of justice will result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 
      
      . The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
     