Jose Cardona-Saldana challenges the sentence of 5 years in prison and 4 years of supervised release that the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to *636 distributing more than 50 grams of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 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 has moved to withdraw, and Cardona-Saldana has filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Counsel notes in his Anders brief that his client is dissatisfied with the length of his sentence. The sentence, however, is the statutory minimum for the offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(viii); United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding statutory minimum sentence not unreasonable).

Cardona-Saldana seems to argue in his pro se supplemental brief that his trial counsel was ineffective, but such a claim should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Ramirez-Hemandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006).

After reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a cert petition.