Malik Jarmon appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 upon his guilty plea to a drug offense. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the harshness of Jarmon’s 70-month prison sentence. We affirm.

We will not entertain counsel’s argument because Jarmon entered into a plea agreement wherein he specifically agreed to the prison sentence he received. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal). Further, Jarmon’s sentence was within the applicable and unobjected-to Guidelines range. See United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (sentence is not reviewable merely because it is at top of properly calculated Guidelines range).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.