James Wainwright pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit bank fraud and other offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1349, and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. At sentencing, the district court 1 determined that Wainwright’s advisory Guidelines imprisonment range was 41-51 months, noted its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Wainwright to concurrent 46-month prison terms, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. Wainwright appeals, and in a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel raises issues concerning the reasonableness of Wainwright’s prison sentence.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, affording a presumption of reasonableness if the sentence is within a correctly calculated Guidelines range. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (approving presumption of reasonableness for sentences within advisory Guidelines range). Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court correctly calculated Wainwright’s advisory Guidelines imprisonment range and reasonably sentenced him within that range. See United States v. Two Shields, 497 F.3d 789, 795-96 (8th Cir. 2007) (defendant overcomes presumption of reasonableness if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or weighed appropriate factors in clearly erroneous way).

After 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 non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.