Adam Kaminski challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 1349, and to illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). His counsel seeks leave 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). For reversal, counsel questions the district court’s application of a 16-level enhancement for Kaminski’s deportation following his felony conviction for robbery, see U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A), and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of his victims’ losses. Kaminski has filed a supplemental brief also challenging the court’s application of the 16-level enhancement.
We will dismiss this appeal. The written plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, and we conclude that the appeal waiver should be enforced because (1) the transcript of the plea hearing shows that Kaminski’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and entered with full knowledge of the appeal waiver; (2) the waiver covers the arguments raised on appeal; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not cause a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (enforceability of appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in An-ders case).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and, subject to counsel’s obligation to advise Kaminski on the procedures for filing motions for rehearing and for certiorari, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.