United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 16-2545
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                                  Jamane J. Smith

                     lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                     ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                ____________

                         Submitted: December 28, 2016
                            Filed: January 3, 2017
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jamane Smith appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 imposing
sentence after he pleaded guilty to robbery and firearm charges. His counsel has

      1
      The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.
moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Smith
has filed a pro se brief challenging the court’s conclusion that he was a career
offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. He has also filed a motion
requesting that his appeal be held in abeyance pending an anticipated Supreme Court
decision.

      Smith pleaded guilty after entering into a written plea agreement containing an
appeal waiver. Notwithstanding the assertions made by counsel and Smith, we
conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 

, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); United States v. Andis, 

,
890–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing the enforcement of appeal waivers), cert.
denied, 

(2003); see also United States v. Lumpkins, 

,
1014–15 (8th Cir. 2012) (enforcing an appeal waiver in an analogous case), cert.
denied, 

(2013).

       We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, deny Smith’s motion, and dismiss this appeal.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-