
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patrick ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-2669
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 10, 2017
    Filed: February 24, 2017
    Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Patrick Rogers, Pro Se
    Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Patrick Rogers directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave 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 district court’s Guidelines calculations and the reasonableness of Rogers’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. 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) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record, pursuant to 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 dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. 
      
      , The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
     