                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 19-2413
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Demont M. Vandunk

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                            Submitted: March 11, 2020
                              Filed: March 18, 2020
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Demont Vandunk appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing

      1
      The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.
an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.

      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, 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). We have also
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (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-
