PER CURIAM. Ronda Easton directly appeals after she pleaded guilty to drug, firearm, and money-laundering charges, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, and the district court imposed a below-Guidelines-range prison term. Her 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), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, 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, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under 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 appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal. . The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.