A jury found Daniel F. Ramirez (Ramirez) guilty of conspiring to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court 1 imposed a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On appeal, 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. We affirm.

We conclude the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support Ramirez’s convictions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial based on a juror’s failure to disclose pertinent information during voir dire. See United States v. Ruiz, 446 F.3d 762, 768-70 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 537, 166 L.Ed.2d 398 (2006) and — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1027, 166 L.Ed.2d 774 (2007).

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 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.