[UNPUBLISHED]

Gregory Caldwell appeals from the district court’s 1 entry of an amended judgment following this court’s remand with instructions to vacate one of his four drug convictions. See United States v. Williams, 429 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2005). His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and moved to withdraw, and Caldwell has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We conclude that Caldwell’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. RamirezHernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006). The challenges to his convictions and sentence that he attempts to raise in this appeal after remand had to be raised in his first appeal and are beyond the scope of this court’s remand. See United States v. Walterman, 408 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2005).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel’s withdrawal motion, and deny as moot Caldwell’s motion for the appointment of new counsel on appeal.