Cesar Lupian-Barajas pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following his conviction for a crime of violence and deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). During the plea hearing defense counsel predicted a sentencing range of 70 to 87 months; the magistrate judge 1 acknowl *238 edged counsel’s expertise with the Sentencing Guidelines, and stated that counsel’s prediction was not binding but was a “pretty good indicator of what’s likely to happen.” The later-calculated range was 77 to 96 months, and the district court 2 imposed a sentence of 90 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing the guilty plea was rendered involuntary because Mr. Lupian-Barajas was led to believe he would be sentenced within a lower Guidelines range.

We disagree, noting that the magistrate judge informed Mr. Lupian-Barajas of the statutory maximum sentence, and clearly warned him that the district court was not bound by defense counsel’s prediction. See United States v. Granados, 168 F.3d 343, 345 (8th Cir. 1999) (defendant’s reliance on attorney’s mistaken impression about length of sentence is insufficient to render plea involuntary as long as court informed defendant of maximum possible sentence). Upon reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.