PER CURIAM. Byron Gorman appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to wire fraud pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), requesting leave to withdraw, and arguing that Gorman’s above-Guidelines-range sentence is unreasonable. Gorman has filed a pro se brief, challenging the enforceability of the waiver and the reasonableness of his sentence. A challenge to the reasonableness of Gorman’s sentence falls within the scope of the plea agreement’s appeal waiver.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. 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). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivo-lous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. . The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.