PER CURIAM. After Carlos Herrera pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing marijuana, the district court sentenced him to 80 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. This appeal followed in which counsel seeks 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). Herrera has filed a supplemental brief.
The written plea agx'eement in this case contains an appeal waiver, and we will enforce it: the transcript of Herrera’s plea heaxing shows that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and entered into with full knowledge of the appeal waiver; the arguments raised on appeal fall within the scope of 'the waiver; and enforcing the waiver would not cause a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc). Finally, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to 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 outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Herrera about px’ocedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. . The Honorable Gregory Kays, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.