[Unpublished]
Mark H. King appeals after he pled guilty to a sex offense pursuant to a binding plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal.
The district court
1
imposed a sentence consistent with the plea agreement. Kings 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), contending that the appeal waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
This court concludes that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). This court has also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. The appeal is dismissed, and counsels motion to withdraw is granted.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
PER CURIAM.