United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 17-3166
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                 James E. Caldwell

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

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

                             Submitted: May 22, 2018
                               Filed: May 30, 2018
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      James Caldwell directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, to

      1
       The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. Caldwell’s counsel has moved to withdraw,
and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing that the
sentence was substantively unreasonable.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable,
and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 

, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de
novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis,

, 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 under Penson v. Ohio, 

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the
appeal waiver.

      Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this
appeal.
                    ______________________________




                                         -2-