Jamane Smith appeals from the judgment of the District Court ^[1] imposing sentence after he pleaded guilty to robbery and firearm charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th- Cir.) (en banc) (discussing the enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied,[*590] 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003); see also United States v. Lumpkins, 687 F.3d 1011, 1014-15 (8th Cir. 2012) (enforcing an appeal waiver in an analogous case), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1612, 185 L.Ed.2d 599 (2013).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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.