James L. Anderson appeals the sentence that the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to two counts of robbing a federally insured bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and one count of brandishing a firearm during one of the robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii). On appeal, 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), in which he argues that the sentence imposed is too harsh, and that Anderson should have received a sentence reduction in light of his role in the bank robberies as an aider and abettor.

Anderson may not, however, challenge his sentence as too severe, because the district court sentenced him consistent with the parties’ plea agreement. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.”). Further, we have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. We also deny Anderson’s motions for appointment of new counsel.