United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 19-3616
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                 Jarrod Terrell Kent

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: October 9, 2020
                             Filed: October 15, 2020
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jarrod Kent appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the district
     1
court imposed a sentence consistent with his binding Federal Rule of Criminal

         1
      The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which contained an appeal waiver. His
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable.

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

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

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

(1988), and
have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                        ______________________________




                                         -2-