United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 06-3485
                                     ___________

United States of America,           *
                                    *
            Appellee,               *
                                    * Appeal from the United States
      v.                            * District Court for the
                                    * District of Nebraska.
Mauricio Luna-Aranda, also known as *
Jose Lara-Tapia,                    * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                    *
            Appellant.              *
                               ___________

                              Submitted: November 20, 2007
                                 Filed: November 26, 2007
                                  ___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Mauricio Luna-Aranda appeals the 41-month prison sentence the district court1
imposed upon his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after deportation.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 

(1967), asserting that Luna-Aranda’s
sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to serve the goals of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).


      1
      The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
       Luna-Aranda pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a
waiver of his right to appeal the sentence. We will enforce the appeal waiver here.
The record reflects that Luna-Aranda understood and voluntarily accepted the terms
of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver; the appeal falls within the scope
of the waiver; and we conclude that no injustice would result. See United States v.
Andis, 

, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of
appeal waiver).

      Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal beyond the scope of the
waiver. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-